9(34 

I  K4 


UC-NRLF 


$B    2bfl    bM2 


FUEE     LO^E 


OR,  A  PHILOSOPHICAL  DEMONSTRATION  OF  THE 


NON-EXCLUSIVE  NATUBI3 


OF.'.     ,', 


CONNUBIAL  LOVE, 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  EXCLUSIVE  FEATURE  OF  THE  FOWLERS, 

ADIN  BALLOU,  H.   C.  WRIGHT,   AND    ANDREW 

JACKSON  DAVIS  ON  MARRIAGE. 


BY    AUSTIN  KENT. 


HOPKINTON.    N.    T. 
.PUBLISHED    BY    THE   AUTHOR. 

1867. 


tA 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congreas,  in  the  year  1?57,  by 

AUSTIN   KENT, 

In  the  Clerk'a  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 

Southern  District  of  Ohio. 

CORRECTION. 

48th  page,  15  lines  from  bottom  insert  is  l)et\^ 
vharity  and  not. 

70th  page,  7  line.i  from   top,  for  practical  read/r 
tionah 

75th  page,  middle,  for  nominal  read  harmonial. 

88th  page,  2d  line  from  bottom,  insert  icitli  Mn  j 
I  tween  which  and  is. 

136th  page,  11  lines  from  top,  for  carelessly  1>. 
causelessly. 

Other  less  errors  omitted. 


t 


P»REinA.OE. 


We  have  meant  to  make  the  title  of  our  book  so 
plain  that  no  thoroughly  conservative  mind  could 
mistake  —  and  so  waste  his  money  in  purchasing  it. 
We  have  given  much  of  the  last  twenty  years  of 
our  life  and  time  to  the  world,  **  without  money  and 
without  price  ;"  and  if  we  should  find  it  necessary, 
or  for  any  reason  think  it  best  to  let  our  httle  work 
partly  bear  the  expense  of  its  own  publication,  we 
wish  no  one  to  be  deceived  in  getting  it.  We  have 
BO  thought  of  any  material  remuneration  for  our 
own  labors.  Reader,  this  is  very  radical ; — and  we 
confess  to  a  choice  not  to  be  the  first  to  wake  any 
who,  with  all  the  influences  of  the  nineteenth  century 
about  them,  are  yet  soundly  asleep  upon  the  lap  of 
the  past.  We  do  not  wish  such  to  be  too  suddenly 
brought  into  travailing  pains  for  their  own  spiritual 
and  mental  birth  to  the  future  —  even  though  we 
know  these  must  sooner  or  later  come.  Some  milder 
and  more  gradual  dose  might  be  better  as  a  first 
stimulant.  We  took  our  pen  mainly  for  the  benefit 
of  reformers,  and  for  those  whom  nature  has  given 


iVTiM7iG 


IV  PREFACE. 

some  ability  to  be  such.  These  are  more  than 
welcome  —  we  invite  them  to  read  us  critically 

The  subject  of  Love  and  Marriage  will  ever  be  one 
of  vast  importance  to  our  race :  we  can  hardly 
conceive  it  possible  to  rate  it  too  highly.  Between 
1837  and  1840  Theophilus  R.  Gates  published  a 
series  of  radical  tracts,  called  the  **  Battle  Axe.'* 
This  stirred  the  waters  of  orthodoxy.  In  these,  he 
inserted  a  letter  from  John  H.  Noyes,  which  de- 
clares, that,  in  a  state  of  heavenly  holiness  on  earth, 
*'  Every  dish  is  free  to  every  guest."  The  context 
put  his  meaning  beyond  question.  All  of  this,  then, 
amounted  to  but  little  more  than  prophecy. 

In  1849,  Mr.  Noyes  came  out  with  a  full  expo- 
sition and  defence  of  his  principles  in  his  *'  Bible 
Argument."  This  was  an  able,  but  small,  work  on 
Free  Love  for  all  saved  and  redeemed  humanity. 

Not  far  from  this  time — we  simply  write  the  date 
from  memory — the  Fowlers  (L.  N.  and  0.  S.)  wrote 
each  a  book  on  **  Marriage.''  They  taught  that  love 
was  marriage,  but  confined  it  to  dual  order — to  pairs. 
On  the  whole,  these  last  books  were  elevating  in 
their  tendency  among  the  mass  of  minds 

In  1850,  Henry  James  wrote  to  good  effect  in  his 
**  Moralism  and  Christianity.'* 

In  J  852,  Dr.  Lazarus  published  '*  Love  vs.  Mar- 
riage." This  book  was  of  the  Fourier  cast ;  and,  for 
the  time,  was  **  written  without  gloves."  It  was  a 
most  lovely  and  lovable  book,  but  not  so  argumen- 


PREFACE.  y 

tative  as  some  which  have  succeeded  it.  It  must 
have  put  many  minds  into  a  right  train  of  thought. 

In  1853,  Horace  Greeley  published,  in  the 
**  Tribune/*  a  part  of  a  discussion  between  Henry 
James,  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews,  and  himself.  The 
whole  came  out  afterwards  in  a  tract,  by  Mr.  An- 
drews. This  must  have  been  deeply  interesting  to 
minds  on  all  sides  of  the  questions. 

In  1854,  Henry  C.  Wright  and  Dr.  Nichols 
each  published  a   fair  sized  book  on  *' Marriage." 

The  present  year,  we  have  Andrew  Jackson  Davis 
on  the  same  subject.  We  have  long  had  the  writings 
of  Fourier,  Owen,  and  others  on  the  Affections, 

We  consider  all  of  these  books  most  valuable. 
None  of  them  are  superfluous.  We  think  Mr. 
Wright  elevates  connubial  love  as  high  as  it  can  be 
elevated  in  exclusive  dual  marriage.  He  teaches 
that  love  is  marriage,  and  sticks  by  nature,  as  he 
understands  it. 

Dr.  Nichols  (his  wife  wrote  a  portion  of  the 
book)  takes  nature  for  his  guide,  but  denies  its 
exclusiveness.  His  book  is  very  instructive ;  and 
favors  the  Free  Love  doctrine.  Mr.  Davis,  in  the 
main,  teaches  the  philosophy  of  marriage  with  great 
clearness  and  beauty,  but  contends  that  connubial 
love  is  monogamic  in  its  highest  manifestations. 
Before  closing  our  book,  I  intend  to  review  this 
exclusive  phase  in  Mr.  Wright  and  Mr.  Davis,  so  I 
will  not  add  more  here.     Several  of  these  last  books 


VI  PREFACE. 

liave  seemed  to  come  almost  simultaneously.  It  has 
multiplied  the  number  of  readers,  on  the  subject  of 
which  they  treat,  tenfold  ;  and  yet  it  has,  compara- 
tively, but  just  begun  to  agitate  the  public  mind.  It 
is  now  destined  to  be  thoroughly  discussed.  The  fire 
IS  already  kindled  which  will  bring  to  the  judg- 
ment the  traditions,  with  the  imperfect  institutions, 
of  the  past,  and  burn  up  the  *'  hay,  wood,  and  stub- 
ble" which  are  found  in  them.  On  the  whole,  I 
am  not  sorry  that  these  late  authors  took,  in  the 
main,  the  several  and  diverse  positions  which  they 
did.  We  are  in  an  age  of  active  thought,  and  truth 
is  more  deeply  planted  in  the  understandings  and 
hearts  of  men  by  this  friendly  opposition  and 
discussion.  Truth  is  always  safe  in  such  discussions. 
So  far  as  we  hold  opinions  not  based  in  truth,  these 
may  and  will  suffer  a  loss  in  such  a  mental  refiner, 
— but  absolute  truth  never  can.  When  we  get  an 
article  of  great  utility,  we  are  apt  to  feel  a  sort  of 
wonder  how  we  could  so  long  do  without  it.  So 
I  felt  on  reading  most  of  these  late  works  on 
marriage.  Yet  probably  the  world  was  not  prepared 
for  them  before.  I  will  add — to  my  mind,  they  all 
seem  to  have  come  in  about  the  right  order. 

We  repeat — none  of  these  are  superfluous.  The 
isubject  is  not  yet  exhausted.  We  hold  the  pen  to 
add  another  book  to  the  list, — and  we  promise  the 
reader,  that  ours  shall  not  be  superfluous.  We  do 
cot  promise  that  it  shall  be  agreeable  to  his  mental 


PREFACE.  tI! 

taste, — unless  his  taste  Las  been  harmoniously 
adjusted  to  some  of  the  most  radical  in  the  past. 
We  come  in  defence  of  Free  Love.  We  do  this, 
because  we  are  sure  we  find  it  in  nature,  in  its  most 
exalted  and  harmonious  manifestations. 

On  the  subject  of  morals  and  marriage,  there  has 
been  a  great  advance  in  a  short  space  of  time.  I 
refer  more  specially  to  reformers.  A  little  time  ago, 
'*  Moses ''  was  the  standard.  Outward  and  legal 
marriages  were  first, — love  and  harmony  were 
secondary.  Then  obedience  to  simple  legal  morality 
was  virtuous.  Now  all  this  has  changed.  Among  all 
of  these  writers,  except  Mr.  Noyes  and  Mr.  Gates, 
nature  is  the  standard.  Nature  is  the  Infallible  and 
Inspired  Book  ;  and  its  normal  promptings  are  the 
law  of  virtue  and  of  morals.  Mr.  Noyes  defends 
his  positions  both  from  nature,  and  the  spiritual  and 
higher  teachings  of  the  New  Testament.  Here, 
then,  there  is  no  controversy  among  these  radical, 
reformatory  writers,  as  to  what  is  the  standard  of 
truth,  or  as  to  where  the  law  of  marriage  is  to  be 
found ;  none  as  to  the  propriety  of,  or  chastity  in, 
obeying  these  laws.  These  writers  do  differ  as  to 
the  proper  reading  of  nature's  laws.  Fourier, 
Owen,  the  Fowlers,  James,  Lazarus,  Nichols, 
Andrews,  Wright,  and  Davis,  agree  that  true  love 
is  marriage.  The  Fowlers,  Wright,  and  Davis 
contend  that  connubial  love,  in  its  highest  develop* 
ment,  is  exclusively  dual.     Here  the  latter  agree, 


riH  PREFACE. 

though  in  other  respects,  of  much  less  importance, 
they  differ  widely.  Fourier,  Owen,  Noyes,  An- 
drews, and  Nichols,  deny  the  evidence  of  the 
exclusive  nature  of  this  love,  and  teach  more  or  less 
the  modern  doctrines  of  Free  Love.  These  last 
differ  on  other  points  among  themselves. 

I  am  happy  to  find  the  controversy  so  much 
shortened  in  space — in  extent  of  range.  We  all 
teach  that  the  laws  of  mind  are  our  guide  ;  and 
that  these  laws  must  be  absolutely  free.  In  this 
sense,  we  all  contend  aUke  for  Free  Love.  We  agree 
that  healthy  affinities  and  attractions  must  reign 
supreme.  But  Mr.  Wright,  and  some  others,  tell  us 
that  this  healthy  attraction  will,  and  must,  in  its 
nature,  be  always  exclusive.  I  hear  some,  on  the 
other  hand,  say  to  Mr.  Wright  and  his  friends, — 
**  Hands  and  opinions  off !  Allow  us  the  freedom 
to  settle  the  nature  of  our  own  attractions.  Admit- 
ting you  may  know  what  is  most  healthy,  elevating, 
and  pure  for  yourself — do  not  measure  all  men  and 
all  women  by  your  owrn  affectional  stature  !  '*  I  say 
to  Mr.  Wright,  if  you  see  a  law  of  mind  as  mind — 
or  the  highest  law  of  mind  as  such, — it  is  not 
impertinent  for  you  to  speak  out  that  law.  We 
think  we  know  and  see  some  of  the  unalterable  laws 
of  mind,  and  we  claim  the  right  to  so  far  expose 
and  defend  these  laws.  If  others  differ  from  us, 
we  not  only  leave  them  free  to  live  their  views  of 
truth,  but  we  respect  them  in  it.     All  of  us,  it  is 


PREFACE.  IX 

probable,  are  as  yet  comparatively  in  but  the  **  abbs  *' 
of  mental  Philosophy.  I  will  never  attempt  to  live 
any  law  farther  than  I  think  I  see  it.  Reader,  we 
are  very  near  Mr.  W.*s  opposite.  We  believe  that 
though  men  differ  much — very  much,  none,  in 
entire  freedom,  and  uninfluenced  in  the  past  and 
present  by  other  minds  or  institutions  in  the  bond- 
age of  the  past  or  present, — would  ever  be 
absolutely  exclusive  in  any  of  the  manifestations  of 
connubial  love.  This  is  our  position,  and  our 
extreme — if  it  be  an  extreme.  We  all  agree  in  the 
positive  nature  and  force  of  these  laws  of  mind. 
Some  of  us  believe  these  laws  can  be  demonstrated* 
Mr.  Wright  finds  this  connubial  love  to  be  **  a  law  of 
attraction  superior  to  our  wills,  and  which  we  have 
no  power  to  create  or  destroy."  Again  he  says : 
**  Our  souls,  I  believe,  are  substance,  as  truly  as 
are  air,  light,  electricity,  and  magnetism.  The 
same  law  of  creation  governs  souls  that  governs  all 
other  material  bodies."  Mr.  Davis  fully  harmonizes 
with  all  of  this.  I  am  most  thankful  for  all  of 
this  agreement  to  shorten  the  labor  of  future 
discussions. 

The  Book  of  the  Law,  and  the  power  and  binding 
nature  of  the  law,  is  equally  settled.  I  here  record 
my  gratitude  to  all  of  those  writers  who  have  done 
much  to  elevate  marriage  over  the  power  of  my- 
thology and  legal  bondage,  though  they  are  our 
opponents  as  to  the  main  doctrine  of  our  book.    They 


X'  PREFACE. 

have  each  written  up  to  the  mental  and  moral 
elevation  of  their  own  understandings.  We  shall 
write  our  highest  perceptions  of  truth.  The  devel- 
oping mind  of  the  future  will  better  understand  all  of 
us;  and  better  see  our  faults.  They  will  do  us  all 
iustice.  For  though,  ** round  and  round  we  go, 
truth  will  at  last  come  uppermost.''  Witli  the 
fullest  and  most  entire  assurance,  I  commit  my 
radical  book  to  present  and  coming  humanity. 

Austin  Kent. 
Hopkintoii, 

St.  Lawrence  Co.  N.  Y, 


CONTENTS, 


Preface ill 

CHAPTER  I. 
Introduction 13 

CHAPTER  n. 
Definition  of  Words  and  Phrases. — Statement  of  our 

Position — The  Argument  Commenced 19 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Argument  Continued 28 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Fowlers — The  Argument  from  Analogy 34 

CHAPTER  V. 
Mr.  Ballou — An  Explanation — Part  of  his  Reply  in  my 
Rejoinder 41 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Mr.  Ballou  Continued — His  Book 58 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Mr.  Henry  C.  Wright — A  Review — "  What  is  Marriage  ?  "    74 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Review  of  Mr.  Wright  continued 98 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Andrew  Jackson  Davis — General  Remarks— Quotations 

from  his  Book 109 

Appendix , 135 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

As  mucli  as  our  age  professes  to  be  in  favor  of 
free  discussion,  we  find  a  large  class,  even  among 
partial  reformers,  who  can  hardly  look  at  and  read 
dispassionately, — or  have  any  patience  with  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  freedom  in  love,  from  a  harrowing: 
fear  of  the  real  or  imaginary  consequences  of  the 
immediate  possible  success  and  spread  of  such  views. 
Some  of  these,  though  of  "little  faith,**  are  honest 
hearted  in  these  fears.  Such  minds  will  say  to  us 
— "  If  it  were  true  that  freedom  in  love,  and  the 
modern  principles  of  Free  Love,  would  one  day  in 
the  future  of  human  progression  be  safe,  and  be  the 
order  of  sexual  harmony,  is  it  wise  to  promulgate 
these  sentiments  now,  when  the  race  is  yet  so 
awfully  perverted,  and  often  make  even  truth  a 
' '  Saviour  of  death  ? ' '  These  taay  add, — * '  admitting 
entire  freedom,  and  a  '  variety '  is  consistant  with 
a  perfect  state  of  Society,  do  not  men  yet  Deed 
restraining  in  some  things  which  in  themselves 
would  be  right  ?  Did  not  the  learned  and  wise  Paul 
Bee  some  things  in  the  'third  heavens'  of  the 
2  13 


A 4  FREE    LOVE. 

future  glory  of  tne  church  on  earth,  which  he  did 
not  consider  it  ^  expedient/  or  *  lawful  for  him  to 
utter  ?  '  And  did  not  a  greater  than  Paul  withhold 
even  from  his  well  beloved  disciples,  that  which  he 
well  knew  they  could  not  as  yet  bear  ?"  We  may 
furthur  be  reminded  of  the  case  of  our  modern  In- 
spired writer,  A.  J.  Davis,  in  still  postponing  his  re- 
ply to  the  question,  "  What  and  Where  is  God  !  "  in 
view  of  the  present  state  of  the  public  mind. 

Reader,  we  admit,  understand,  and  appreciate  this 
respectable  weight  of  testimony.  Nature  and  th« 
Bible  both  reveal  truth  little  by  little,  and  hold  a 
**  veil  "  over  the  rest  for  the  time.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  this  fact.  But,  in  reply,  we  will  pre- 
sent another  phase  of  the  subject,  equally  plain  and 
undeniable.  Jesus,  Paul,  and  every  Reformer  be- 
fore and  since  their  day,  have  taught  truths  in  ad- 
vance of  their  respective  ages.  Such  truths  have 
always  more  or  less  been  used  to  promote  bad  ends. 
We  think  no  sudden  and  great  change,  which,  on 
the  whole,  was  of  much  utility,  ever  came  in  our 
world,  without  bringing  with  it  its  immediate  pres- 
ent evils  for  a  time.  This  is  often  true  of  scientific 
as  well  as  moral  changes.  An  increase  of  suffering 
is  often  the  first  effect  of  important  and  useful  in- 
ventions. I  will  refer  to  the  first  effect  upon  th« 
poor  on  the  introduction  of  factories  and  sewing 
machines.  Society  is  of  very  large  dimensions,  and 
complex  in  its  parts,  and  it  is  not  an  easy  matter 


INTRODUCTION.  i'S 

to  re-adjust  it  after  a  great  change.  This  is  true  of 
every  phase  of  it.  In  my  opinion,  man  can  never  be 
freed,  mentally  ancf^morally,  without  an  increase  of 
immediate  suffering.  Yet  man  never  can  be  saved 
without  such  freedom.  All  must  learn  more  or  less 
by  experience, — and,  in  this  experience,  be  *'made 
perfect  through  suffering."  It  is  naturally  impos- 
sible for  a  child  to  develop  into  entire  manhood  or 
womanhood,  without  freedom.  They  must  be 
trusted  to  go  alone,  and  **at  their  own  cost." 
Abolishing  the  law  of  imprisonment  for  debt,  in  our 
state,  caused  more  or  less  immediate  embarassment 
to  both  the  rich  and  the  poor.  It  has  now  greatly 
benefited  all  classes.  It  also  removed  a  hinderence 
to  the  development  of  mind  in  moral  honesty. 
That  "the  law  makes  nothing  perfect" — is  a  truth 
found  any  where,  or  -in  any  Book.  Many  of  the 
books  to  which  we  have  alluded  in  our  Preface — 
even  such  as  simply  teach  that  love  is  marriage, — 
we  believe,  will  not  at  first  serve  to  lessen  human 
suffering,  in  their  love  relations,  but  add  to  it.  If 
we  are  correct  in  this — we  only  state  it  as  our  opin- 
ion—  the  same  may  be  more  true  of  ours.  We 
flatter  no  man.  Yet  all  of  these  books,  with  ours, 
will  only  hasten  a  crisis,  through  which  the  world 
must  pass.  There  is  no  affectional  salvation — no 
real  or  perfect  manhood,  this  side  of  it.  The  most 
inveterate  and  deepest  seated  disease  of  civilization 
must  be  probed.     The  lance  will  be  painful.     The 


16  FREE    LOVE. 

whole  body  will  feel  the  shock.  But  it  must  come  ! ! 
I  have  not  one  doubt  but  that  it  will  end  in  greater 
health  to  the  Patient.  It  will  promote  real  purity 
and  chastity — and  so  an  increase  of  peace,  and  a 
more  perfect  harmony.  Woman  can  never  rise  to 
her  entire  womanhood  without  it. 

The  question  as  to  the  time  when  a  higher  truth 
shall  be  published,  is  one  of  expediency.  It  is 
important,  but  not  of  the  first  importance.  Honest 
and  good  men  may  differ  in  relation  to  it.  The 
most  true  friends  of  Free  Love  have  differed  here. 
We  should  seek  to  be  guided  by  a  wise  and  holy 
expediency.  But  no  mind  is  prepared  to  judge 
correctly  upon  it,  till  he  is  at  least  thoroughly  awake 
to  a  true  sense  of  the  terrible  and  wide -spread 
bondage  and  suffering  in  our  present  state  of  society. 
Its  wrongs  are  as  high  as  heaven  and  as  deep  as  hell. 
Whoever  sees  this,  will  feel  the  need  of  some  radical 
change  for  the  better.  The  real  conservative  would 
never  change.  The  Reformer  alone  must  look, 
judge,  and  act.  I  was  born  through  a  long  line  of 
orthodox  ancestry  of  New  England  Congregational- 
ism; and  trained,  **  in  the  way  I  should  go,''  to  an 
orthodox  religion  ;  and  was  once  in  the  orthodox 
ministry.  It  has  taken  me  a  long  time  to  lay  off 
the  unreal  of  the  past.  Long  after  I  became  estab- 
lished in  my  present  views  of  Free  Love,  I  could 
sympathize  with  Mr.  Greeley  and  Mr.  Ballon,  in  a 
dread    to  see  these    principles  spread  among   the 


INTRODUCTION.  if 

masses.  But  since  I  have  laid  off  many  of  my  con- 
servative views,  my  faith  in  humanity  has  greatly 
increased.  My  confidence  in  the  power  and  safety 
of  truth  has  alike  increased. 

We  add  further — the  friends  of  Free  Love  are  not 
alone  responsible  for  the  general  spread  of  the  more 
radical  phases  of  these  principles.  The  history  of 
the  past  plainly  shows  that  our  opponents  would 
never  let  us  alone.  Mr.  Noyes  was  not  allowed  to 
rest  in  peace,  in  the  retirement  of  his  own  private  or 
select  friends,  and  his  own  society.  So  it  has  ever 
been  with  myself.  But  so  far  from  regretting  the 
influence  which  has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  us, 
we  are,  at  least,  most  grateful  to  a  kind  and  wise 
Providence  for  in  this  way  freeing  us  from  the 
lingering  remains  of  what  we  now  believe  was  a 
false  conservatism. 

But,  reader,  the  time  has  come  when  there  is  a 
necessity  for  every  phase  of  this  question  to  be 
thoroughly  discussed.  It  is  fairly  up  before  the 
public  mind.  All  sides  have  been  broached,  and 
more  or  less  defended.  Mind  cannot  be  staid  till  it 
is  fully  canvassed.  Men  do  not  now,  as  in  the  past, 
follow  simple  instinct,  or  unenligTiferied  passion  or 
love.  They  demand  mental  instruction,  and  they 
will  have  it.  They  ask  for  something  more  than 
surface  teachers,  and  human  opinions.  They  ask 
for  philosophy,  and  they  will  have  it.  "  The  sup- 
ply will  be  equal  to  the  demand."  The  true  mind 
2* 


18  FREE   LOVE. 

desires  to  see  every  possible  objection  urged  against 
his  most  cherished  positions.  When  these  fail  to 
stand  the  ordeal  of  any  amount  of  the  most  searching 
criticism,  he  has  no  longer  any  confidence  in,  or 
respect  for  them.  However  sure  he  may  be  that  he 
has  the  truth,  he  is  more  sure  of  the  real  power  of 
truthy  and  of  its  entire  ability  to  sustain  itself.  Such 
a  mind  knows,  too,  that  truth  is  advanced  by  re- 
pulsion as  well  as  by  attraction ;  that  every  active 
mind  puts  it  forward,  whether  in  love  with,  or  in 
opposition  to  it.  If  he  stands  in  the  latter  relation 
to  it,  he  is  a  repelling  power.  We  only  mean,  while 
man  is  on  the  plane  of  haired — hatred  will  work 
utility  in  his  progress.  As  God  lives,  this  must  he 
true.  When  will  men  more  generally  arrive  at  a 
proper  confidence  in  the  power  of  truth,  and  of 
God  ?  Till  this  subject — marriage — is  thoroughly 
handled  on  loth  sides,  man's  faith  can  not  be  deeply 
laid.  Every  effort  of  a  true  mind  will  lay  the  truth 
more  and  more  fully  upon  the  eternal  rock  of  ages 
— nature.  We  always  hail  with  pleasure  the  promise 
of  any  able  and  fair  writer  to  review  and  criticise 
our  most  cherished  faith.  We  never  fail  to  buy 
such  books.  If  our  opponents  have  like  confidence 
in  truth,  and  feel  as  we  do,  that  any  agitation  must 
advance  it,  they  will  cordially  welcome  our  effort, 
and  thank  us  for  it,  as  we  do  them  for  theirs. 

In  our  age,  active  minds  have  little  time  to  parley 
with  moral  and  mental  cowards.     We  welcome  the 


DEFINITION  OP   WORDS   AND    PHRASES.  19 

coming  war — the  "bloodless  war/'  which  we  have 
long  seen  gathering.  We  shall  pray  for,  work  for, 
and  welcome  the  crisis,  and  glory  in  the  assurance 
that  it  will  end  in  good. 


CHAPTER    II. 

DEFINITION   OF   WORDS    AND    PHRASES STATEMENT   OF 

OUR    POSITION THE    ARGUMENT    COMMENCED. 

Before  introducing  the  reader  to  our  argumenta- 
tive letters,  we  shall  first  define  some  of  the  more 
important  terms  which  we  shall  be  likely  to  use, 
and  so  make  our  exact  moral  whereabouts  more 
clearly  understood.  By  connubial  love,  I  mean  a 
normal  development  of  the  sexual  attraction  of  our 
nature,  in  all  of  its  phases.  By  denying  its  exclu- 
siveness,  I  deny  that,  in  such  a  harmonious  devel- 
opment, it  will  be  absolutely  confined,  in  any  form 
of  its  manifestations,  to  one  of  the  opposite  sex. 

When  we  write  non-exclusive,  we  mean  not 
absolutely  exclusive  —  no  more.  By  promiscioua, 
we  sometimes  mean  no  more  than  the  opposite  of 
entire  exclusiveness :  the  context  will  show  when 
it  means  more.  We  do  not  teach  an  entire  non-ex- 
clusiveness,  or,  what  is  the  same,  an  absolute 
promiscuity.     To  us,  this  is  equally  absurd  with 


$0  yREB    LOVE. 

entire  exclusiveness.  Yarious  shades  of  preference 
are  natural  and  so  proper.  Different  minds  differ  as 
to  their  leanings  towards  entire  exclusiveness,  or  its 
opposite  —  absolute  promiscuity.  This  is  more  or 
less  true  on  every  plane  of  sexual  or  connubial 
love.  What  we  declare  to  be  true  of  this  love  is 
true  of  every  other  love.  No  man  or  woman  is 
absolutely  promiscuous  in  their  social  or  adhesive 
attractions.  Nor  is  any  one  absolutely  dual  and 
exclusive.  The  reader  will  find  the  same  law  to 
prevail,  with  various  modifications,  through  all  the 
lower  and  all  the  higher  loves.  Benevolence,  the 
crowning  faculty,  and  the  personification  of  our 
moral  manhood,  has  its  shades  of  variation.  The 
Great  Teacher,  though  the  highest  pattern  of 
universal  charity  and  benevolence,  showed  much 
partiality,  preference  for  the  "brethren;**  and  he 
had  his  "beloved  disciple*'  among  the  twelve  of  the 
more  choice  of  these.  His  moral  teachings  are  very 
emphatic,  and  often  repeated,  in  enjoining  this 
special  regard  for  our  brethren.  Paul  bade  us  **  do 
good  to  all  men,  but  especially  to  the  household  of 
faith.**  In  this,  Jesus  and  Paul  acted  and  taught  in 
harmony  with  the  laws  of  mind.  But  enough,  I  am 
understood.  Truth  impells  us  to  regard  all  accord- 
ing to  their  real  value,  and  our  ability  to  appreciate 
it.  The  former  would  be  a  true  estimate,  the  latter 
is  as  near  as  we  can  practically  reach  it.  Because 
truth  may  require  me  to  lay  down  my  life  for  ono 


DEFINITION   OF    WORDS    AND    PHRASES.  21 

man,  it  may  not  for  another.  Of  course,  in  choosing 
a  partner  in  marriage,  we  should  not  be  governed  in 
our  selection  by  an  estimate  of  the  real  worth  of 
the  person,  but  of  his  or  her  relative  worth  and 
fitness  for  such  a  relation  to  us.  I  write  thus  full  on 
some  of  these  points,  to  make  clear  what  I  consider 
some  of  the  true  principles  of  mental  philosophy, 
and  so  to  prepare  the  way  for  my  mental  argument. 
I  have  been  full,  at  the  expense  of  some  repetition,  to 
save  the  reader,  if  possible,  from  the  misconceptions 
which  experience  has  shown  me  too  often  pursue 
such  an  expose  as  this,  on  so  radical  a  theme. 

In  what  I  have  written,  the  reader  will  perceive 
tliat  I  have  not,  and  he  may  be  assured  that  I  shall 
not,  undertake  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  a  special 
and  *'ideal  mate,"  when,  and  so  far  as  it  is  not  carried 
to  absolute  and  entire  exclusiveness,  in  any  phase 
of  its  amative  monopolies.  In  other  words,  and 
more  correctly,  I  shall  only  review  and  oppose  the 
entire,  exclusive  feature  of  the  system  of  dual  mating. 

Further  explanation : — In  the  main,  I  approve  of 
the  ** spirit  and  nature'*  of  what  Swedenborg,  the 
Fowlers,  Wright,  and  others  of  their  like,  call 
connubial  love  ;  but  I  deny  that  such  disinterested- 
ness,  such  purity,  such  oneness  of  soul,  such  moral 
elevation  and  chastity  in  sexual  love,  is  exclusive,  or 
confined  to  one.  When  these  men  write  directly  of 
pure  and  elevating  love,  in  opposition  to  impurity 
and  a  predominance  of  self  in  love,  or  "lust,"  I 


22  FREE   LOVE. 

Jiarmonize  with  them.  When  they  say  ttat  such 
iove  as  they  have  described,  cannot  seek  a  variety, 
in  entire  health,  I  deny  it.  When  they  write  upon 
fthe  nature  and  spirit  of  lust  and  its  effects,  I  har- 
monize with  them.  But  when  they  say  that  all 
attraction  towards  a  variety,  is  of  such  a  nature,  I 
deny  it.  I  think  I  must  be  understood  by  all  who 
have  carefully  read  their  books.  This,  too,  is  very 
important  to  a  clear  understanding.  I  positivly 
deny  that  these  writers  are  my  opponents,  as  to  what 
really  constitutes  a  pure  and  elevating  love  and 
attraction,  or  an  impure  and  debasing  one.  We  all 
admit  that  man  may  lust  after  one  or  many.  I  insist 
tliat  he  may  love  one  and  many.  I  write  to  prove 
my  last  position,  and  to  disprove  its  opposite. 

Our  first  and  main  argument  will  be  presented  in 
tbree  letters,  the  substance  of  which  were  written 
in  1853,  and  published  in  the  fall  and  winter  of 
1854-5,  in  the  "Practical  Christian.''  We  shall 
^mit  nothing  in  these  letters  which  we  consider 
essential  to  our  present  purpose. 

the  argument. 
Friend  Ballou  : — 

I  thankfully  accept  your  hospitality  in  allowing 
me  a  place  in  your  paper,  to  express  my  dissent  from 
your  views  on  the  subject  of  Free  Love,  and  to  record 
my  reasons  for  that  dissent. 

Free  Love  and  Marriage  are  fast  becoming  (he 
question  of  the  age.  All  classes  will  soon  see  tbia 
feet,  whatever  view  they  mav  take   of  it  in  other 


THE    ARGUMENT.  %^ 

respects.  It  has  been  about  the  last  to  ask,  and  will 
perhaps  be  the  last  to  receive,  a  full  and  fair  hearing. 
It  will  have  it  soon  in  the  Press  and  in  the  Lecture - 
room.  Since  I  suggested,  (last  fall,)  the  propriety 
of  a  discussion  with  yourself,  it  has  been  brought 
before  the  public,  and  called  forth  more  attention 
than  for  years  previous.  I  refer  mainly  to  the  two 
books  written  —  one  by  Mr.  Wright,  and  the  other 
by  Dr.  Nichols  and  his  wife — which  have  been 
extensively  advertised,  and  more  generally  read  than 
anything  before  this.  I  might  add,  the  introduction 
and  agitation  of  it  through  some  few  spiritual  medi- 
ums. Mr.  Wright  and  Dr.  Nichols  harmonize  on 
many  points ;  on  others  they  are  diametrically 
opposed.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  some  few  letters 
which  I  wrote  last  fall  (with  the  intention  of  send- 
ing them  sooner  to  your  paper)  are  confined  entirely 
to  this  main  difference,  and  as  appropriate  as  I 
could  now  write.  It  will  be  remembered,  those 
books  were  not  then  published.  I  am  glad  of  the 
delay  in  my  letters,  as  many  more  minds  will  be 
prepared  for  them.  I  will  take  the  liberty  especially 
to  ask  those  who  have  read  those  books,  to  read  my 
letters ;  I  have  many  years  since  taken  my  position, 
and  I  really  believe  I  can  demonstrate  its  truth.  I 
wish  to  come  to  the  vital  question,  and  make  my 
exposition  and  discussion  as  short  as  possible  and  do 
the  subject  justice.  I  have  no  health,  ability,  or 
desire  to  hold  a  long  controversy,  and  yet  I  esteem 
it  a  great  privilege  to  record  what  seems  essential, 
and  to  commit  myself  to  the  age  in  defence  of  what 
to  me  is  the  most  absolute  truth  —  and  the  most 
elevated.  I  have  such  confidence  in  the  power  of 
truth  and  such  faith  in  the  real  good  arising  from 
free  discussion,  that  I  prefer  to  do  this  in  the  im- 


r 


24  frep:  love, 

mediate  presence  of  an  opponent  Ike  mj  friend 
Ballon. 

The  question  which  I  propose  to  discuss  is — • 
Does  Sexual  Chastity  confine  every  man  and  every 
woman  to  the  ''pairing*'  order,  or  to  be  exclusively 
dual  in  the  ultimates  of  love  ?  Does  normal  and 
pure  love  require  this  ?  Or,  still  more  abridged,  and 
just  as  well  understood  as  now  explained — Should 
marriage  ahoays  he  exclusive  and  dual?'* 

I  take  the  negative  of  the  last  question  as  now 
stated.  Before  proceeding  to  the  argument,  let  me 
remind  the  reader  that  I  came  first  to  my  present 
views  of  the  subject  from  a  careful  study  of  the  great 
"fundamental  doctrine '*  of  the  Christ,  as  found  in 
the  sum  of  all  revealed  commands.  —  In  his  love 
doctrines — (See  Matt.  xxii.  37 — 40.)  Secondly,  I 
found  the  same  in  studying  the  laws  of  the  mind  and 
the  nature  of  love,  as  read  in  the  mind.  My  own 
choice  seems  to  incline  me  to  make  the  last  first,  and 
the  first  last ;  so  I  will  first  argue  from  the  mind. 
In  the  argument,  I  intend  to  show,  to  a  mental  and 
moral  demonstration,  that  normal  and  truthful  love 
cannot  be  exclusive  or  dual.  I  shall  then  draw  tlie 
inference  as  one  self-evident,  that  the  ultimates  of 
love  should  harmonize  with,  and  fairly  represent 
their  source.  That  the  outward  manifestations  of 
love  should  truly  represent  its  inward  life  and  attrac- 
tions. By  normal  and  truthful  love,  I  mean,  when 
the  mind  is  perfectly  balanced,  and  the  mental  in 
freedom  of  wisdom  controls  the  affeetional — or  at 
least  the  affeetional  is  properly  balanced  by  and 
harmonizes  with  the  mental.  I  trust  this  careful- 
ness in  explanation  will  save  much  misunderstanding 
and  much  repetition  in  the  future. 

I  say,  then,  in  reasoning  from  the  laws  of  mind. 


THE    ARGUMENT.  25^^ 

I  cannot  find  truth  at  the  bottom  of  the  common 
Marriage  doctrine.  For  convenience,  let  me  speak 
as  if  personal — as  I  develop  in  my  sentiments  and 
faculties,  I  find  myself  possessed  of  love — an  attrac- 
tion to  and  affinity  for  other  persons.  I  find  the 
nature  and  intensity  of  this  love  or  affinity  to  de- 
pend upon  two  thing's — two  persons — myself  and 
the  object  loved.  I  am,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  am  ' 
speaking,  comparatively  a  fixed  fact  in  always  loving 
and  having  an  affinity  for  certain  attributes  of  other 
human  beings.  I  love  mentality.  Some  minds 
more  than  others,  because  their  mentality  is  more 
in  harmony  with  the  particular  development  of 
mine — but  I  can  love  no  one  mind  exclusively.  For 
every  other  person  shares  in  a  degree  in  the  same 
faculties.  If  I  love  mind,  to  love  one  mind  exclu- 
sively from  another  is  impossible.  All  mind  is 
more  or  less  alike.  As  minds  vary,  my  love  may 
vary.  Absolute,  exclusive  love,  in  this  case,  if  it  were 
possible,  would  be  a  natural,  more  properly  an 
unnatural,  Msehood.  Truth,  or  the  nature  of  the 
mind  requires  me  to  love  every  like  attribute  of  mind 
with  like  lovey  and  the  intensity  should  be  governed 
by  the  size  of  the  attribute,  and  my  ability  to  appre- 
ciate it.     This  would  be  truth  for  me. 

I  love  morality,  spirituality  and  religion — here  too 
the  same  law  prevails.  I  am  bound  to  be  impartial 
in  my  love  up  to  my  ability.  Truthfulness,  as  well 
as  the  nature  of  the  mind,  forbids  that  I  should 
concentrate  entirely  and  exclusively  upon  any  one 
moralist,  spiritualist,  or  religionist.  Nature  did  not 
make  me  sectarian.  At  least  I  cannot  be  when  I 
am  finished  and  perfected.  Again  I  say  here,  I  can- 
not love  all  alike — all  are  not  alike — nor  can  I  per- 
fectly appreciate  all.  Yet  1  cannot  love  with  a  rational, 
3 


26  FREE    LOVE. 

truthful  love  the  same  moral  or  religious  attrihule, 
found  in  the  same  quantity,  more  in  one  than,  in  another. 
It  would  be  unnatural  and  fiilse.  I  have  adhesive- 
ness, so  I  love  all  persons  socially — all,  male  and 
female — but  here  I  cannot  love  all  alike,  and  yet  I 
must  from  necessity  love  all  like  attributes  alike. 
Truth  requires  impartiality.  I  cannot  be  exclusive, 
since  all  have  like  social  attributes. 

I  have  araativeness,  so  I  love  woman — possibly 
I  may  love  her,  in  this  sense,  exclusively  from  man; 
she  is  possessed  of  something  different  from  man 
mentally,  spiritually  and  physically.  But  I  cannot 
love  any  one  woman  exclusively  from  any  other 
woman.  I  love  all  women  as  such  —  not  alike  in 
mental,  spiritual  or  physical  sexuality  ;  far  from  it  ; 
nor  can  1  be  exclusive  and  concentrate  my  affections, 
except  I  do  violence,  first  to  my  reason,  and  then  to 
my  affections.  My  love  may  vary  towards  different 
women,  as  they  vary  in  their  mental,  spiritual, 
religious,  social  and  physical  womanhood,  and  as  I 
have  more  or  less  ability  to  appreciate  them,  or  as 
they  are  more  or  less  in  harmony  with  either  or  all 
these  points  with  my  own  particular  taste  ;  but  I 
cannot  love  one  in  the  many  exclusively  from  her 
sisters.  My  ojpjponents  harmonize  with  me^  in  precept 
at  least,  in  relation  to  all  these  manfestations  of  love, 
except  the  physical.  They  will  commend  this  gen- 
eral and  universal  state  of  the  affections,  and  condemn 
partiality  and  exclusiveness.  But  when  the  whole 
man  develops  into  harmony  with  itself,  and  with 
every  other  man  and  every  other  woman  —  when 
the  same  universal  law  is  allowed  to  prevail  through 
all  the  affections,  they  are  shocked  with  the  impro- 
priety ;  and  yet  it  is  as  unnatural  to  exclusively 
concentrate  the  love  of  the  physical  as  it  is  that  of 


THE    ARGUMENT.  27 

any  other  part  of  the  mind.  In  this  our  attractions 
vary,  but  I  insist,  it  is  a  natural  impossibility  to 
make  them  exclusive.  We  must  first  annihilate  or 
uncreate  what  God  has  created.  In  this  sen.se  man 
is  attracted  to  woman  as  such,  and  the  same  of  wo- 
man to  man.  This  love  for  the  physical  of  the 
opposite  sex,  and  attraction  to  it,  is  alike  universal 
in  its  nature  with  every  other  love.  As  all  my  pre- 
vious arguments  to  sustain  the  necessary  univer- 
sality of  love,  apply  equally  here,  I  will  not  repeat 
them.  There  are  laws  to  govern  mind,  as  absolute 
as  those  to  govern  matter.  The  forest  tree  can  be 
bent  by  some  material  cause  ;  so  can  the  affections, 
by  a  power  of  mind  or  will ;  but  the  crooked  tree, 
or  the  contracted  and  warped  affections,  are  excep- 
tional and  less  harmonious.  I  find  no  marriage  in 
nature,  as  the  law  of  marriage  has  ever  been  taught 
us.  I  do  find  the  marriage  of  man  to  woman.  "  They 
twain  make  one  flesh,*'  says  Nature,  in  all  her 
teaching  on  this  subject.  The  Good  Book,  in  its 
higher  meaning,  responds  to  Nature's  lessons.  JSTo 
truth  can  be  more  clearly  taught.  Without  this 
oneness,  this  union,  either  man  or  woman  is  but  a 
fraction — a  most  unnatural  fraction.  This  must 
always  be  true — in  the  next  world  as  well  as  in  this — 
unless  we  are  to  be  partially  annihilated  to  fit  us  for 
an  entrance  there.  This  to  us  is  the  extreme  of 
folly.  So  our  reason  in  this  harmonizes  with  the 
Revelations  of  Swedenborg  and  the  Spirits. 

I  agree  with  Mr.  Ballou  and  others,  that  without 
marriage,  the  material  union  of  the  sexes  is  more  or 
less  adulterous;  that  conjugal,  or,  as  Swedenborg 
would  write  it,  **conjugial  love,"  is  essential  to  the 
purity  of  such  relations.  I  accept  of  the  latter's 
description  of  this  love,  of  its  nature,  but  I  deny 


FREE    LOVE. 


that  such  love  is  confined  to  the  one — or  necessarilj 
exclusive.  I  believe  a  well  developed  man  may  and 
should  love  woman  in  general,  so  far  as  she  is  the 
woman  of  creation,  and  upright  and  lovely,  (and  he 
could  not  truthfully  love  the  one  without  this,)  more 
purely,  more  justly,  more  disinterestedly  and  more 
conjugally  than  the  most  devoted  dual  lover  often 
feels.  I  accept  of  the  Love  Doctrines  of  marriage 
from  my  inmost  soul,  having  known,  and  knowing 
them,  but  I  deny  that  they  are  exclusive. 


CHAPTER  III. 

the  argument  continued. 

Friend  Ballou  : 

I  proceed  in  my  reasoning  from  the  nature  of 
the  mind.  I  may^and  am  required  to  love  a  man 
**as  myself,"  with  the  same  kind  of  love.  I  may 
love  another  man  more  or  less  than  myself,  in 
degree,  according  to  what  he  is.  If  he  is  on  tbo 
whole  not  so  good  a  man,  I  should  not  love 
him  as  much  ;  for  I  am  not  required  to  be  partial 
either  way.  Nature  hioios  no  false  humility  or 
false  modestyy  hut  only  truth.  If  he  is  better  than 
myself,  and  I  have  the  ability  to  know  and  appre- 
ciate goodness  beyond  my  absolute  goodness,  then 
I  may,  and  normal  and  well-developed  mind  requires 
and  prompts  me  to,  love  and  regard  him  better  than 
myself.  Tliis  is  possible  and  natural ;  it  is  truth. 
Any  state  but  this  is  so  far  falsehood.     But  if  I 


THE   ARGUMENT    CONTINUED.  29 

have  not  the  ability  to  know  and  measure  his  good- 
ness, beyond  my  own  goodness,  then  1  can  not  love 
him  better  than  myself.  My  standard  of  love,  in 
either  or  any  case,  is  never  absolute  truth  for  ano- 
ther, but  simply  obeying  the  command  of  nature 
to  me.  Another  should  vary  in  accordance  with  his 
ability,  God  does  not  require  any  two  men  to  love 
Him  alike  in  degree.  Each  is  to  love  with  his  whole 
heart,  and  mind,  etc.  That  is,  up  to  this  capacity. 
The  same  law  prevails  as  to  my  love  for  woman; 
and  more.  I  should  not  only  love  her  as  myself,  but 
differently y  perhaps  exclusively  from  myself ;  and  if 
I  may  not,  as  a  general  rule,  love  her  better  pr  more 
than  myself,  I  have  a  greater  ability  to  be  useful  to 
her  than  to  myself,  and  in  this  I  promote  my  own 
greatest  felicity.  I  may  love  some  one  man  more 
than  any  other  man,  but  I  should  not,  I  can  not  love 
him  exclusively  from  every  other  man :  so  of  woman.  I 
may  love  some  one  man  religiously  or  socially  more 
than  any  other  man  in  the  same  sense  :  so  of  woman. 
It  is  naturally  possible,  (but  perhaps  never  a  truth 
as  a  fact  in  Providence,)  for  me  to  love  some  one 
man  more,  mentally,  religiously  and  socially,  than 
any  other  man,  hut  never  to  love  any  of  these  parts 
exclusively  from  the  same  parts  in  other  men :  so 
of  woman.  We  some  times,  as  a  fact,  love  some  one 
woman  mentally  or  socially,  or  amatively,  more  than 
any  other  woman  in  the  same  sense  ;  and  were  it 
ever  a  fact,  as  it  can  be  conceived  naturally  possible 
to  be,  for  us  to  love  one  woman  in  all  these  parti- 
culars more  than  any  other,  it  would  be  unnatural 
and  impossible  to  love  such  a  person  exclusively 
from  her  sisters, — from  others  of  her  sex.  We  can 
not  do  it  in  either  or  all  of  these  phases  of  love. 
Then  where  in  nature  is  exclusive  marriage  ?  No- 
3* 


10  FREE   LOVE. 

where  !  I  think  I  am  understood  here,  and  invite 
the  closest  scrutiny.  All  of  these  loves  for  man  or 
woman,  and  in  man  and  woman,  may  be  in  a  very 
perverted  and  impure  state ;  or  they  may  all  be  the 
most  pure  and  chaste.  My  religious  love  may  be 
religious  selfishness  and  sectarianism.  My  sexual 
love  may  be  the  greater  love  for  sexual  self,  or  what 
is  the  same  thing,  lust.  My  affinities,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest,  may  be  all  adultery  in  some 
of  its  definitions,  But  the  form  or  order  of  their 
manifestations  does  not  necessarily  indicate  their 
purity  or  impurity.  Normal  love  is  pure  and  chaste 
in  its  origin,  in  its  living  action,  and  as  much  so  in 
all  its  ultimates.  And  the  ultimates  of  love  should 
correctl}^  represent  their  cause.  If  love  cannot  be 
exclusive  in  the  mind,  it  should  not  be  held  to  be  in 
its  manifestations — in  its  consummations.  The  out- 
going or  ultimates  of  love  should  image  forth  its 
interior  life.  The  reader  will  observe  that  in  these 
letters,  thus  far,  I  have  aimed  to  prove — 

1 .  IMiat  our  lore  for  others  cannot  he  exclusive  on 
any  one  point  towards  any  one  person. 

2.  I  draw  the  inference,  as  a  self-evident  propo- 
sition, and  as  one  which  I  believe  is  universally 
admitted, — that  the  manifestation  of  love  should  be 
a  true  image  of  itself.  This  will  be  the  case,  when 
nature  is  left  entirely  and  absolutely  free. 

Does  the  fact  of  experience ^  or  the  consciousness 
of  the  mind  sustain  our  position  ?  Many  desire  to 
receive  this  exclusive  love,  and  the  lowest  of  the 
race,  who  regard  love  in  any  proper  way,  are  the 
most  tenacious  in  this  desire.  Such  persons  are 
nearly  equally  jealous  of  all  the  love  of  a  mate — 
religious  and  mental  as  well  as  sexual.  But  these 
persons  are  not  as  ready  to  return  this  exclusive 


THE    ARGUMENT    CONTINUED.  81 

love.  Many  of  these  neither  see  the  necessity  nor 
feel  the  propriety  of  confining  their  affections,  except 
as  they  find  it  enjoined  and  enforced  in  the  law  of 
marriage,  and  in  the  public  sentiment  which  marriage 
has  created.  With  these  the  demand  is  unjust, 
and  selfish,  and  proves  them  in  a  state  of  disease 
of  the  affections ;  at  least  they  are  unbalanced  and 
inharmonious.  Many  others — the  number  is  more 
than  is  generally  supposed — ask  no  exclusive  love. 
They  desire  none.  These,  in  the  average,  have  a 
more  elevated  phrenological  development  than  the  first 
class  named.  I  leave  room  in  this  statement  for  the 
many  exceptions.  Some  of  these  last  would  suffer  as 
much  with  a  mate  who  should  be  disposed  to  bestow 
all  her  life  on  him,  as  the  man  of  the  opposite  desire 
would  with  one  w^ho  withheld  it.  Let  elevated  hu- 
manity judge  which  is  the  more  noble  and  truthful 
state  of  mind.  I  add,  man  is  conscious  of  the  same 
ability  to  be  attracted  to  the  opposite  sex  in  general, 
as  much  in  physical  amativeness,  as  in  the  menUil 
and  spiritual.  He  has  the  power  in  a  great  degree 
to  concentrate  all  the  affections.  So  he  has  the 
power,  in  nearly  or  quite  the  same  degree,  to  confine 
or  direct  all.  If  he  be  well  balanced  or  well  disci- 
plined, he  may  suspend,  indefinitely,  all  amative 
desire  or  attraction  towards  any  woman — his  own 
wife  not  excepted.  This  is  possible  for  some  minds, 
placed  in  almost  any  conceivable  circumstances,  and 
without  all  the  safeguards  of  the  Shakers.  But  all 
this  is  not  normal,  or  natural.  It  is  not  truthful  or 
commendable.  I  repeat ;  in  a  normal  state  of  the 
affections,  we  are  conscious  of  their  universality j  and 
not  of  i\i^\x  entire  exclusivcness  in  any  one  particular. 
Our  ability  to  control,  confine  or  suspend  their 
inward  or  outward  action  towards  the  many,  or  the 


32  FREE   LOVE. 

one,  does  not  stifle,   or    silence  the  voice  of  this 
consciousness. 

I  most  respectfully  invite  the  friends  of  exclusive 
marriage,  who  believe  that  the  mind  is  God's  Book, 
and  that  its  healthy  attractions  are  his  laws,  to 
carefully  observe  the  main  arguments  in  the  two 
preceding  letters,  and  to  bear  with  what  may  seem 
to  them,  too  much  repitition.  My  proposition  stands 
in  the  gap  between  all  contending  parties.  It  is  the 
main  hinge  on  which  this  great  question  turns.  I 
am  not  touching  the  doctrine  of  expediency  for  dis- 
eased man,  or  giving  any  counsel  concerning  him. 
The  latter  is  an  after  and  side  question.  I  aim  to  go 
back  of  all  disease,  or  "misdirection,*'  and  forward 
to  the  full  health  of  progression  and  final  manhood. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  lust,  but  of  Love — of  normal 
attraction.  It  is  of  vast  importance,  and  cannot  be 
longer  evaded.  I  will  not  detain  the  reader,  by 
going  too  much  into  side  issues.  I  must  be  full  here, 
even  at  the  expense  of  some  repetition.  I  must  leave 
no  possible  chance  for  misconception.  It  will  only 
protract  the  discussion,  which  is  sure  to  come ;  and 
I  have  suffered  too  much  from  misconception  already. 

We  shall,  then,  press  the  inquiry  upon  the  mind  of 
the  candid  reader.  Is  love  on  any  one  point  abso- 
lutely exclusive  ?  Is  it  so  in  amativeness  ?  Is  it 
more  so  in  amativeness  than  in  adhesiveness  ? — or  in 
any  diflferent  sense  ?  If  our  opponent  says  yes,  and 
^he  must ;  will  he  give  us  fiilly  and  clearly  his  phil- 


THE   ARGUMENT    CONTINUED.  33 

osophy — his  mind  argument  ?  We  have  said  no,  and 
we  believe  we  have  demonstrated  our  reply.  We 
court  honest  and  manly  criticism  ;  no  other.  We 
aver  that  we  are  not  seeking  personal  victory, — but 
truth.  — We  do  not  know  how  to  argue  with  any 
man  to  prove  that  two  and  two  make  four  ;  we  place 
it  before  the  man.  of  figures,  and  we  think  he  cannot 
help  seeing  it.  So,  we  believe,  we  have  placed  the 
laws  of  the  mind,  before  the  reader's  mental  vision, 
and  we  think  he  cannot  help  seeing  them.  We  think 
he  cannot  help  seeing,  that  minds  alike  will  at- 
tract ALIKE ; — and  that  50  far  as  minds  are  alikcy 
they  will  attract  alike.  That  this  must  be  true  of 
mind  as  mind,  and  so  true  of  all  its  parts.  (We  have 
not  argued  in  the  preceding  letters,  by  the  analogy, 
that  because  one  faculty  of  the  brain  was  non-exclu. 
sive,  so  another  must  be.  We  left  that  for  a  cominar 
letter.)  So,  as  all  minds  are  more  or  less  alike, — 
and  as  each  faculty  in  one  mind  is  some  hke  the 
same  faculty  in  another  mind,  there  can  be  no  en- 
tire exclusiveness: — and  as  each  and  every  man,  and 
each  and  every  woman,  are  more  like  every  other 
man  and  every  other  woman,  than  they  are  unlike 
them,  a  general  attraction,  union,  and  love,  must 
be  the  rule,  in  a  healthy  state  of  the  race.  **  Repul- 
sion''(or  hatred)  is  a  negative;  —  it  represents 
less  attraction.  It  is  a  lesser  power  in  mind — is 
the  exception, — and  follows  the  same  law  with  love, 
as  to  its  non-exclusiA^eness. 


34  FREE    LOVE. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  FOWLERS THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY. 

Should  the  Marriage  of  the  sexes  be  exclusive  and 
dual? 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  Fowlers,  of  New  York,  have 
done  more,  for  the  last  fifteen  years,  to  support  ex- 
clusive and  dual  marria^ey  than  any  or  all  writers  in 
the  same  time.  They  profess  to  find  it  in  the  mind, 
as  they  read  the  science  of  phrenology.  That 
science  is  now  popular,  and  they  are  among  its  first 
expounders.  There  is  no  way  that  I  can  better 
communicate  my  own  views,  so  far  as  I  wish  todoi^ 
connected  with  this  science,  than  by  giving  their 
views,  and  presenting  my  own  in  contrast.  Let  me 
premise.  If  phrenology  teaches  exclusive  and 
dual  marriage,  it  is  safe.  The  friends  of  Free  Love 
will  find  themselves  in  an  unequal  warfare.  Such 
of  my  readers  as  are  any  way  solicitous  for  morals, 
and  harmonize  with  the  Fowlers,  and  the  present 
laws  of  civilization,  may  rest  in  the  most  perfect 
safety.  The  writer  of  these  letters  will  surrender 
when  he  finds  that  the  true  readings  of  phrenology 
are  against  him.  By  this  statement  he  implies  no 
present  doubt  on  the  subject. 

The  Fowlers  divide  the  human  mind  into  about 
forty  faculties.  They  subdivide  these  into  as  many 
more.  "Amativeness,*' or  sexual  love,  they  divide 
into  the  "upper  and  lower,'*  or  the  "spiritual, 
mental,  and  physical.'*  They  do  and  do  not  exclu- 
pWely  marry  the  spiritual  and  mental  of  amativeness. 
Mr.    0.    S.  Fowler,     in   his  work   on   "Love    and 


ARGUMENT    FROM    ANALOGY.  36 

Parentage/*  very  plainly,  to  my  mind,  teaches  the 
entire  concentration  of  all  sexual  life  or  love  on  one, 
in  perpetuity  and  without  interruption  or  deviation 
through  natural  life.  Again,  he  and  his  brother  do 
not  teach  this.  They  do  not  marry,  or  exclusively 
cofifine  the  '*  spiritual  and  mental  **  of  sexual  love — 
of  amativeness.  In  their  delineations  of  character, 
they  always  speak  of  love  for  woman  in  general, 
with  a  sort  of  approbation  ;  and  they  never  pass  a 
great  man,  in  whom  this  sentiment  is  prominent, 
without  noticing  it  to  his  credit.  So  of  all  other 
Phrenological  writers.  In  this,  these  men  harmonize 
exactly  with  the  oge,  and  with  all  good  writers  on  man. 
They  are  most  "  orthodox/'  Mr.  Wright,  in  his 
late  work  on  Marriage,  leaves  out  so  much  of  sexual 
love  from  the  exclusive  yoke.  He  says,  **  the  at- 
traction of  men  and  women  to  each  other,  as  such, 
has  its  privileges,  and  its  fixed,  just  laws  to  govern 
it.''  This  general  regard  for  woman,  as  such,  is 
sexual,  and  doubtless  what  Mr.  0.  S.  Fowler  calls  the 
spiritual  and  mental  of  amativeness.  This,  then,  I 
think,  civilization  doQ3  not  intend  to  marry  in  her 
exclusive  dual  bonds.  The  feelings  of  many  hus- 
bands and  wives  among  us  are  much  disturbed  by 
this  general  freedom  in  a  partner,  and  with  such,  if 
liberty  is  taken,  it  causes  jealousies  and  complain- 
ings, but  public  opinion,  instead  of  condemning  such 
freedom  as  licentious,  where  it  is  not  carried  too 
far,  or  beyond  a  common  degree  of  spiritual  and 
mental  amativeness,  takes  the  side  of  liberty,  and 
condemns  the  complaining  party.  The  lattfer  are 
considered  narrow  minded  and  selfish.  It^is  plain, 
then,  that  the  Fowlers, — society  in  general, — ^and 
even  the  Shakers,  allow  more  or  less  freedom  to  a 
portion  of  amativeness,     None   of  these  attempt  to 


3^  FREE    LOVE. 

entirely  confine  or  suppress  the  general  plane  and 
actions  of  its  higher  manifestations.  Even  the  Head 
Shaker  must  have  his  spiritual  female  mate.  Now 
for  the  contrast.  I  do  not  separate  the  faculties, 
and  free  a  part,  and  confine  a  part.  I  do  not  separate 
the  sentiment — amativeness  —  and  free  a  part  and 
confine  a  part.  I  free  the  whole.  The  whole  man 
and  the  whole  woman.  I  demand  more  plain  and 
philosophical  reasons  for  such  an  inconsistency.  I 
deny  that  there  are  any  rational  and  substantial  rea- 
sons for  this  to  govern  a  normal  mind.  Society  does  not 
exclusively  marry  the  greater  part  of  its  sexual  love. 
I  would  not  so  marry  any  part  of  it.  Civilization 
has  advanced  one  step  from  certain  heathen  nations 
who  consider  it  a  crime  for  their  women  to  be  exposed 
to  the  general  gaze,  and  freed  a  portion  of  this  part 
of  the  brain.  I  and  my  Free  Love  brethren,  would 
free  the  remainder,  and  we  are  as  sure  that  we  shall 
be  approved  by  the  future,  as  we  are  that  civilization 
is  justified  in  her  advances  thus  far.  I  repeat  the 
contrast  in  various  forms  to  get  the  consistency,  or 
inconsistency,  before  the  mind  of  the  reader.  To 
me  this  comparison  is  the  strongest  of  arguments. 
The  Fowlers,  and  our  dual  marriage  friends,  do  not 
marry  in  their  exclusiveness  any  one  of  these  forty 
faculties  of  the  mind.  They  do  marry  in  this  man- 
ner, one-third  of  one  of  the  forty,  and  no  more.  All 
this  general  freedom  to  them  is  chaste  and  ]pure.  I 
do  not  thus  marry  that  fractional  part  of  one.  Rea- 
der, mark  the  contrast,Cnd  the  astounding  oflPense. 
We  are  told  that  the  effect  of  freedom,  in  all  the 
former,  is  good  and  elevating,  while  in  the  latter  it 
is  most  injurious  and  debasing.  What  but  depravity 
ever  first  taught  such  distinctions  and  such  philoso- 
phy?    '*  To  the  pure  all  things  are  pure.'*     The 


ARGUMENT    FROM    ANALOGY.  37 

freedom  of  the  entire  man  is  pure  and  elevating.  To 
the  impure  all  things  are  impure  and  debasing.  To 
such  all  freedom  is  evil  so  far  as  they  are  impure. 
A  pure  and  holy  emotion  is  pure  and  holy,  whether 
it  concentrates  on  one  object,  or  many.  An  impure 
emotion,  or  passion,  is  impure,  whether  in  confine- 
ment or  freedom.  All  free  ninety -nine  ^^arU  of  the 
human  hraln,  I  moke  it  one  hundredj  and  leave  the 
man  a  wiit.  I  am  told  that  ninety-nine  parts  of  the 
affections  can  choose  a  variety  in  purity,  and  with 
propriety,  but  that  the  very  fact  of  this  hundreth 
part  so  choosing,  is  proof  positive,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  it  is  impure  and  lustful.  I  deny  this 
out  and  out,  in  the  name  of  all  consistency,  and 
common  sense.  I  admit  that  those  who  are  attracted 
by  lust  to  the  one,  may  be  the  more  so  to  the  many 
-—but  those  who  have  attained  to  connubial  love  to 
the  one,  may  attain  to  and  possess  it  to  more. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  this,  more  than  in 
all  other  loves,  which  is  exclusive.  But  Mr.  Fowler 
supposes  he  has  found  this  very  marriage  in  the 
brain.  He  calls  it  "love  of  one  only."  ''Duality 
in  Marriage."  I  positively  deny  that  there  is  any 
such  faculty  in  the  human  brain.  There  may  be  a 
sentiment  in  the  lower  part  of  the  brain,  designed 
to  concentrate  and  intensify  all  the  lower  sentiments, 
but  not  one  anything  like  his  readings,  or  deserving 
the  name  which  he  gives  it ;  nothing  can  be  more 
unnatural  and  unphilosophical.  Mr.  Fowler  locates 
this  supposed  sentiment  by  the  side  of  amativeness, 
and  appoints  it  to  hold  an  entire  and  exclusive  con- 
trol over  the  lower  part,  or  **  physical,"  of  amative- 
ness, and  no  more.  He  never  gives  it  any  other 
office.  He  could  not  do  this  consistently  without 
changing  its  name,  and  all  his  past  remarks  upon  it. 
4 


38  FREE    LOVE. 

Even  in  the  strongest  concentrated  loves  between 
persons  of  the  same  sex — ^as  between  David  and 
Jonathan,  **  whose  love  passed  thao  of  woman*' — 
or  between  two  females,  he  never  refers  to  this  sen- 
timent, but  places  such  concentrated  loves,  if  their 
love  is  so  strong  that  its  rupture  ends  in  death  to 
one  of  the  parties,  under  the  head  of  adhesiveness. 
The  bare  statement  of  this  sufficiently  shows  its 
absurdity.  Never  was  science  more  plainly  brought 
down  to  meet  the  prejudices  of  a  still  undeveloped 
age.  If  adhesiveness  can  be  so  concentrated  without 
the  aid  of  a  particular  sentiment  for  that  end,  ama- 
tiveness  can  be  more  so,  as  there  is  one  more  faculty 
in  its  formation  and  concentration. 

Mr.  Fowler  never  makes  any  allusion  to  his  ex- 
clusive marrying  sentiments,  except  connected  with 
amativeness — then  it  must  be  sexual,  and  a  part  of 
amativeness.     This  he  does  not  intend  to  teach. 

Again,  my  objection  to  this  exclusive  mar- 
riage doctrine,  whether  it  be  found  in  Mr. 
Fowler's  readings  of  Phrenology,  or  in  the  moral 
teachings  of  the  Practical  Christian,  is,  that  it  gives 
a  lower  law — the  lowest  of  this  lower  law,  admit- 
ting the  existence  of  such  a  law — absolute  and  entire 
control  over  a  higher  law.  All  will  tell  us,  Mr.  F. 
and  the  P.  C.  not  excepted,  that  the  higher  senti- 
ments of  the  brain  should  be  uppermost,  control  the 
entire  man,  and  that  all  lower  sentiments  should 
harmonize  with  the  higher.  This  doctrine  makes 
the  lower,  on  this  point,  govern,  and  requires  the 
higher  to  harmonize  with  it.  Here  is  one  of  our 
main  objections  to  it.  If  there  is  an  exclusive 
tendency  (I  do  not  admit  it)  in  the  lower  senti- 
ments, the  higher  all  prompt  to  universality — and  the 
more,  as  they  are  more  fully  developed.  I  admit,  there 


ARGUMENT   FROM    ANALOGY.  3t 

is  strictly  no  lower  law,  when  every  lower  sentiment 
of  the  brain  really  harmonizes  with  the  higher. 
They  are  sanctified  by  them,  and  are  most  exalted. 
But  this  is  just  in  proportion  as  they  are  submissive 
to,  and  governed  by,  the  higher.  When  they  assume 
to  reign  over  the  higher,  they  become  debased.  We 
and  our  opponents  agree  in  one  thmg — that  man  in 
the  past,  either  from  his  fall  or  "misdirection,"  or 
from  his  yet  youthful  and  undeveloped  state  —  has 
been  governed  by  his  lower  sentiments  and  propen- 
sities ;  and  we  are  agreed  in  general,  that  this  should 
not,  and  will  not,  always  be  so.  Exclusive  dual 
marriage  is  a  great  improvement,  from  the  entire 
absence  of  all  real  marriage.  So  it  is,  on  the  whole, 
from  a  state  of  polygamy.  So  is  American  slavery 
a  better  state  of  society,  than  a  worse,  which  has 
existed  in  the  past,  when  there  was  no  motive — not 
even  a  selfish  one,  as  in  slavery — for  the  stronger 
to  protect  the  weaker ;  and  so  stronger  tribes  and 
nations,  would  destroy  and  completely  exterminate 
other  weaker  tribes  and  nations.  But  none  of  these 
states  of  society  are  in  harmony  with  man's  higher 
sentiments.  We  may  leave  all  unwept  for  a  better 
—not  for  a  worse.  To  go  below  exclusive  marriage 
is  worse  ;  to  go  above  such  marriage  is  better.  So 
it  is  better  to  emancipate  the  slave,  where  the  peo- 
ple will  not  fall  back  to  a  worse  state  of  society. 
The  Jews  had  a  sort  of  slavery, — but  I  think  their 
extermination  of  the  Canaanites  was  worse.  So  we 
in  a  little  more  slow,  and  possibly  on  the  whole,  in 
a  more  mild  way,  exterminate  the  Indians,  or 
original  Americans.  I  expect  to  see  the  race  rise 
above  both  Slavery  and  Marriao-e  as  it  now  exists. 

Reader,  you  now  have  my  argument  from  analogy. 


40  FREE   LOVE. 

I  argue,  that  as  every  other  faculty  of  the  brain — 
and  two-thirds  of  the  one  under  discussion, — is  non- 
exclusive ;  the  presumpsion  is  that  the  other  third  is 
non-exclusive  also.  And  I  confess  I  cannot  see  it 
possible  for  any  mind  to  reply  directly  to  this  by 
sound  argument,  and  without  sophistry  or  evasive- 
ness. I  believe  any  mind  might  as  well  deny  and 
attempt  to  disprove  a  truth  in  mathematics.  Under 
the  circumstances,  it  justly  rests  upon  the  friends  of 
exclusive  marriage,  to  prove  their  exception,  or  give 
it  up — we  demand  this  of  them.  Age  will  not 
longer  protect  any  Institution. 

Again, — should  or  should  not  the  higher  senti- 
ments control  the  whole  man,  in  each  and  every  act, 
in  harmony  with  their  non-exclusive  laws  ? — Are 
not  the  physical  rights  of  amativeness,  as  well  as 
the  social,  mental,  and  spiritual,  of  real  utility?  Are 
not  the  former  a  real  good — a  valuable  power  ?  And 
so  should  not  this  be  as  such,  at  the  command  of 
our  higher  manhood — Justice  and  Benevolence  ? 
My  questions  are  fully  and  plainly  put,  with  the 
desire  that  the  enlightened  reader  may  understand 
their  import.  No  real  or  imaginary  fears  of  evil, 
which  it  may  be  tliought  will  follow  these  principles, 
will  be  a  fair  reply  to  them.  The  slave-holder  is 
full  of  these,  and  of  such  arguments,  in  defense  of 
his  social  system.  Will  the  friends  of  exclusive 
marriage,  ape  the  former  in  his  fears,  and  in  his 
replies  ?     So  far  many  of  them  have  done  this — and 


AN   EPXLANATION.  41 

ONLY  this.  In  this,  we  hope  for  a  reform  among 
reformers.  We  hope  for  something  better ;  for  a 
more  fair,  condid,  direct  and  rational  reply — or  none. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MR.  BALLOU AN  EXPLANATION  — PART    OF    HIS  REPLY 

IN  MY   REJOINDER. 

In  my  discussion  with  Mr.  Ballon,  1  was  to  write 
a  series  of  letters  in  defense  of  Free  Love.  Mr.  Bal- 
lou  was  to  reply, — I  to  rejoin, — and  he  was  to  follow 
and  close.  I  wrote  five  letters,  (the  last  two  on  the 
Bible — not  here  inserted).  Mr.  B.  replied,  as  was 
expected.  I  rejoined  at  some  length  in  four  letters. 
Mr.  B.  replied  to  my  first  rejoinder,  and  then  in  a 
closing  letter. 

I  have  no  thought  of  giving  any  thing  like  a  full 
view  of  that  discussion,  on  either  side.  But  as  I 
wish  to  review  Mr.  Ballou,  as  well  as  some  others, 
I  will  simply  insert  that  part  of  my  rejoinder  which 
contains  the  substance  of  his  main  argument  on  the 
mind,  against  my  letters  on  the  mind.  I  will  then 
look  into  Mr.  B.'s  Book — "  Christian  Socialism,'' — 
and  see  what  we  can  find  there  directly  related  to 
our  proposition. 

In  justice  to  Mr.  Ballou,  I  would  remark — He 
4* 


42  FREE    LOVE. 

professed  to  understand  me,  in  my  first  two  letters, 
to  reason  from  "analogy,''  and  replied  accord- 
ingly, to  destroy  that  analogy.  I  did  intend  to 
reason  from  analogy  in  my  third,  so  I  accepted  his 
imderstanding*  of  me, — ^adopted  the  analogy,  and 
replied  to  it  as  mine.  I  shall  insert  but  a  portion 
of  my  second  and  third  letters  in  rejoinder. 

Mr.  Ballou's  argument  against  mine,  begins, 
*•  Sexual  love,  as  involving  sexual  coition,  is  radically 
an  instinctive  animal  appetite.  Man  has  it  in  com-* 
mon  with  the  whole  animal  kingdom. — It  is  not  of 
the  nature  of  Benevolence,  or  Friendship,  or  any 
other  truly  spiritual  love.  As  an  animal  propensity, 
it  craves  mainly  its  own  gratification,  just  like  the 
propensity  for  food,  sleep,  etc.  It  does  not  go  abroad 
seeking  opportunities  to  confer  blessings  on  friend 
or  foe.  This  propensity,  then,  is  primarily  and 
essentially  animal.  It  has  its  use  and  place.  With- 
in its  own  proper  limits  it  may  be  gratified  innocent- 
ly. Allowed  to  break  bounds,  it  becomes  criminal 
and  pestilent.  This  is  the  truth  of  the  case.  Is  it 
so  with  the  spiritual  loves  ?  with  love  to  God,  to 
virtue,  and  our  neighbor  ?  Not  at  all.  Away,  then, 
with  all  false  analogies ;  arguments  founded  on  such 
analogies  are  utterly  flillacious  and  worthless." 

We  agree  with  Mr.  Ballou  that  when  this  propen- 
sity '-'breaks  bounds,''  it  is  very  evil  —  but  not  more 
so  than  higher  propensities  and  sentiments.  But  let 
us  keep  to  the  point.  What  are  its  hoimds?  We 
have  proved  them  non-exclusive,  and  we  are  now  to 
answer  Mr.  Ballou's  arofuments  ao-ainst  us.  What 
are  these  arguments?  This  coitionary  propensity, 
he  tells  us,   is  ''radically  an  animal  appetite,"  the 


AN    EXPLANATION.  43 

same  as  in  all  animals,  or  "  in  common  with  other 
animals."  As  such  it  "  craves  mainly  its  own 
gratification/'  like  the  desire  for  food,  etc.  It  does 
not  go  abroad  seeking  to  perform  deeds  of  charity 
and  kindness.  Still  it  may  be  allowed  a  narrow 
sphere  of  action  **  innocently,'*  and  safely, — not  so 
with  the  higher  sentiments.  The  reader  can  judge 
whether  I  have  done  him  justice  in  this  abridgment. 
I  may  mistake  his  meaning.  I  hope,  for  the  honor 
of  humanity,  that  I  do  mistake  it.  For  if  this,  as  I 
read  it,  is  considered  "innocent"  in  dual  marriage, 
we  have  fairly  come  to  the  main  stone  which  too 
often  paves  the  hell  of  misdirected  minds  in  our 
exclusive  marriages.  Is  it  considered  innocent 
for  married  pairs  to  acton  this  matter,  '^ mainly^* 
from  the  cravings  of,  and  to  satisfy,  mere  animal  and 
fleshly  gratification  ?  This  may  be  proper  for  a 
beast,  for  aught  I  know,  but  is  it  for  a  man  ?  Reader, 
I  may  not  understand  Mr.  Ballou ;  but  if  he  does 
not  mean  just  this — what  can  be  the  force  of  this 
argument?  He  certainly  seems  to  excommunicate 
this  part  of  the  brain  from  the  rest  in  a  most  won- 
derful manner.  He  "puts  it  away"  "with  a  ven- 
geance." If  I  understand  him,  I  should  call  such 
a  state  of  the  sexual  aflfections,  lust — not  love. 
What  is  man  ?  Are  not  the  higher  sentiments  so  to 
control  the  whole,  as  to  humanize  them,  and  raise 
all  parts  practically  above  the  beast?  Is  not  the 
man  to  sanctify  the  animal,  in  every  fibre  of  his  na- 
ture, and  in  every  act  of  that  nature  ?  So  we  read 
humanity — so  we  read  the  man.  Nothing  short  of 
this  is  man.  Is  any  part  of  the  man  to  be  set  apart 
from — so  put  away  from, — the  real  man,  or  whole 
man,  and  placed  under  laws  inharmonious  with  his 
leading  manhood  ?     So  long  as   this  is  done,  this 


.44  FREE    LOVE. 

part  will  remain  an  enemy  to,  and  often  successfully 
reio'n  over  the  best  interests  of  that  hio:her  man- 
hood.  There  is  one  partially  redeeming  suggestion 
in  Mr.  Baliou's  argument.  He  compares  the  desire 
for  coition  with  the  desire  for  food,  sleep,  etc.  Its 
comparison  with  that  for  food  is  in  part  truthful,  and 
with  that  for  sleep  is,  at  least,  very  innocent.  But 
let  us  attend  to  the  consistency  or  inconsistency 
with  himself  and  the  good  Book  which  he  rever- 
ences, in  this  comparison,  while  he  so  degrades  it. 
The  Book  enjoins  upon  man — not  the  beast — "  to  eat 
and  drink  to  God's  glory. *'  •"  Whether  therefore  ye 
eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory 
of  God.**  This  command  is  to  the  man,  to  control 
all  his  propensities  and  their  uses,  in  harmony  with 
Charity  and  the  Higher  Law.  But  where  is  Mr. 
Baliou's  consistency  with  himself?  If  Mr.  B.  will 
admit  the  same  non -exclusive  action,  as  being  the 
law  of  the  mind,  and  so  proper  in  this  propensity 
that  he  allows  in  alimentiveness  and  every  other 
lower  propensity,  I  will  at  once  lay  down  my  pen ; 
or  seek  an  opponent.  That  moment  we  are  one. 
Mr.  Ballou  knows  this. 

If  he  will  allow  Benevolence  and  Justice  to  con- 
trol, and  call  to  their  aid  the  eMire  use  of  this 
faculty,  as  he  does  allow  them  to  control,  and  so  call 
to  their  aid  every  other  faculty  of  the  man,  every 
other  sentiment  and  propensity  of  the  man,  I  can 
write  no  more,  we  are  one.  This  would  be  an  entire 
surrender  to  the  whole  meaning  of  all  my  previous 
arguments.  I  would  rejoice  over  his  conversion. 
But  no ;  he  does  not  mean  this.  Then  what  does 
he  mean  ?  What  !  Let  him  throw  no  random  shot,s 
at  this  with  a  mere  fowling  piece  ;  but  make  himself 
consistent  with  himself,  and  it  possible  with  any 


AN    EXPLANATION.  46 

rational    and    pliilosophical    interpretation    of    the 
mind. 

But  coitronary  desire,  when  it  "breaks  bounds/* 
is  "  criminal  and  pestilent,  which  is  not  the  case 
with  the  spiritual  loves."  So  argues  our  friend,  and 
seems  virtually  to  chailange  a  reply.  It  shall  be 
coming.  It  is  more  true  of  the  spiritual  love.  There 
'  is  no  faculty  or  part  of  a  faculty  in  God's  creation  of 
jmind,  that  works  evil  in  a  strictly  healthy  stale, 
and  within  its  own  proper  bounds.  Sexual  love 
does  not,  in  or  out  of  legal  marriage.  In  an  un- 
healthy state,  and  out  of  these  bounds,  all  sentiments, 
and  all  propensities  work  more  or  less  evil — and  are 
more  or  less  **  criminal  and  pestilent.''  The  higher 
sentiments  have  power  in  man  to  be  more  so  than  the 
lower.  So  says  nature.  So  says  experience.  So 
says  the  Good  Book.  My  friend  asks,  "Is  it  so  with 
the  spiritual?"  Most  certainly.  Nothing  can  be 
more  true.  All  the  human  blood  shed  upon  heathen 
altars,  to  appease  the  wrath  of  imaginary  gods,  has 
been  controlled  by  these  faculties  in  both  a  diseased 
state,  and  widely  out  of  their  true  bounds.  All 
religious  wars  have  been  largely  supplied  from  this 
spiritual  fountain  of  man's  mind.  This  has  been  the 
foundation  of  the  Inquisition  and  all  kindred  institu- 
tions. The  Catholics  believed  it  to  be  their  business 
to  defend  religion  in  this  way.  In  this  the  religious 
faculties  were  shockingly  diseased,  and  were  quite 
out  of  their  proper  bounds,  even  if  they  had  been 
in  health.  So  in  all  Protestant  persecutions.  All 
of  these  were  often  as  truly  acting  from  the  spiritual 
or  religious  faculties  of  the  mind,  ia  their  professed 
zeal  for  morals  and  religion,  as  is  the  lustful  husband 
acting  from  amativeness,  when  gratifying  himself 
at  the  expense  of  another,  under  tho  cloak  of  connu- 


46  FREE   LOVE. 

bial  love.  These  spiritual  whoredoms,  we  say,  are 
as  truly  the  fruits  of  diseased  spiritualism,  as  are 
the  oft  repeated  sexual  rapes,  in  or  out  of  dual  mar- 
riage, the  results  of  diseased  amativeness.  These 
religious  men  believed  they  were  acting  from  love 
to  virtue  and  the  neighbor,  and  they  were  doing  so 
in  about  the  same  sense,  and  in  no  other,  that  these 
sexual  "criminal  and  pestilent"  acts  are  from  real 
connubial  love.  I  am  understood  an  t  challenge  a 
reply.  Because  one  sentiment  of  the  mind  is  differ- 
ent in  its  nature  from,  and  perhaps  vastly  higher 
than  another,  it  does  not  follow  that  such  sentiments 
are  not  alike  non-exclusive.  I  have  **  shown  that 
coitionary  sexual  love  ''  is  equally  non-exclusive  in 
its  nature,  as  "  piety,  benevolence  and  friendship," 
and  that  all  of  these  loves  are  pure  and  chaste  in  a 
healthy  and  normal  state,  and  that  in  an  abnormal 
and  perverted  state,  all  are  "  criminal  and  pestilent." 
Who  will  assume  to  pronounce  God's  works  in  na- 
ture, or  the  fruits  of  his  cleansing  grace,  "  common 
and  unclean  ?  " 

Mr.  Ballou  "  contends  that  all  coitionary  sexual, 
love,  out  of  true  dual  wedlock,  is,  per  se,  adulterous." 
I  believe  he  has  not  argued  directly  to  prove  this 
proposition.  He  has  argued  against  analogies  which 
he  supposed  were  designed  to  disprove  it.  We 
should  like  to  read  an  argument  upon  the  nature  of 
the  mind  —  for  the  mind  is  God's  Book  —  directly/  to 
prove  that  all  such  acts  were  adultery.  That  an  act 
that  would  be  pure  and  chaste  in  dual  order,  and 
which  act,  out  of  that  order,  would  be  impure  and 
unchaste.  Can  he  not  make  plain  the  nature  of  the 
change  which  such  act  would  undergo  in  this 
change  of  circumstances  ?  Will  Mr.  Ballou  give  us 
a  specimen  of  his  mental  logic,  in  an  argument  to 


AN   EXPLANATION.  47 

prove  tliat  all  deviation  from  the  dual  order  is,  per  se, 
adulterous?     We  wait  for  it. 

If  a  man  varies  from  one,  or  dual  marriage,  while 
his  one  mate  lives  to  her  exclusive  pledge,  bis  act  is, 
per  se,  adulterous.  But  if  she  commit  adultery,  then 
he  may  get  a  divorce  from  her  and  seek  another. 
jHe  may  now  innocently  embrace  another  in  purity. 
|If  this  one  proves  untrue,  *'  he  may  proceed  as  before 
j — all  in  chastity"  —  and  so  on  indefinitely.  He 
jreally  enjoys  a  variety  through  the  infidelity  of  his 
irepeated  selections.  But  his  motives  are  good,  and 
Iso  his  act,  in  its  change,  is  not  adultery,  per  se. 
I  This  is  civilization,  and  the  extreme  doctrine  of  dual 
imarriage.  Mr.  Greeley,  and  perhaps  Mr.  Ballou, 
! would  bolt  from  this  to  them  apparent  looseness  in 
morals,  were  it  not  for  their  great  reverence  for  the 
Christ.  In  civilization,  death  —  and  many  of  these 
jare  the  slow  murders  of  lust — has  and  does  often 
jfree  men  to  a  great  amount  of  variety  in  amativeness  ; 
jbut  this,  too,  is  not,  per  se,  adultery.  Though  it  be 
I  the  tenth  wife,  it  is  dual  wedlock  still.  But  if  a  man 
j  but  thrice  in  a  lifetime  idtimate  his  love,  and  does 
I  this  in  harmony  with  the  Higher  Law  of  Free  Love, 
jhe  is,  per  se,  an  adulterer.  This  is  a  monster  of 
I  inconsistency.  And  we  have  a  right  to  look  for  its 
i  retraction,  or  its  overwhelming  proof,  if  such  a 
thing  were  possible.  In  such  a  case  the  proof 
should  come  from  a  source  which  cannot  mislead  or 
be  misunderstood,  to  command  respect.  If  Mr. 
Ballou  does  not  admit  that  the  motive  sanctifies  the 
act  in  this  succession  of  wives,  by  what  law  does 
he  justify  these  as  pure,  and  condemn  a  less  variety 
under  the  head  of  Free  Love  ?  We  press  this  call. 
He  has  multiplied  his  statements  that  the  coitionary 
act  is  only  lawful  and  pure  in  dual  marriage,  but  he 


48  FREE    LOVE. 

has  not  attempted  to  give  any  proof  of  tliis  except  by 
separating  amativeness  from  the  man,  and  degrading 
it  to  the  animal.  This  manner  of  handling  it,  if  it 
were  proper,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  order  of  its 
manifestations,  as  to  duality  or  promiscuity. 

In  the  following  we  come  more  fully  to  Mr.  Ballou's 
reply  to  ours,  No.  two.  "  Mr.  Kent  continues  to  con- 
found things  and  terms  which  ought  to  be  discrimina- 
ted, as  radically  dissimilar.  I  cannot  consent  to  it.  He 
makes  no  distinction  between  veneration  and  benev- 
olence. He  talks  of  loving  a  person's  mentality, 
spirituality,  and  morality  just  as  if  tiiis  were  loving 
the  individual  being.'*  Really,  reader,  Mr.  Ballou 
is  too  profound  for  me  here.  I  did  suppose  that 
loving  all  the  parts  or  attributes  of  a  being  was  loving 
the  individual  being.  But  let  us  attend  to  him. 
"  But,  admiring,  venerating  and  delighting  in  these 
is  wholly  different  from  loving  the  individual  being, 
in  the  sense  of  the  second  commandment."  The 
idea  is  good  and  truthful  after  all.  It  amounts  to 
this,  Benevolence  or  Charity  not  like  any  other 
faculty  in  the  human  brain,  as  to  the  object  or  motive 
of  its  desire  or  love  ;  and  that  the  second  command 
refers  directly  to  this  as  being  the  highest  moral 
sentiment  of  the  man.  All  good  and  truthful.  We 
have  not  hinted  one  word  to  the  contrary.  There 
are  no  two  sentiments  of  the  brain  that  are  alike  iu 
this  sense.     They  are  every  one  unlike  another. 

Again.  —  "Other  loves  [than  benevolence]  are 
more  or  less  limited  and  exclusive" — he  names 
*'  Alimentiveness,  Acquisitiveness,"  etc.,  etc.  I 
deny  the  truth  of  this,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  have 
argued  for  the  non-exclusiveness  of  amativeness. 
In  that  sense  they  are  non-exclusive.  Benevolence 
is  the  feeling  of  mercy  and  goodness  towards  every 


AN    EXPLANATION.  49 

>bject  which  is  capable  of  receiving  such  goodness, 
and  being  benefited  by  it.  It  is  exclusive  to  such 
:objects  or  to  such  being,  So  alimentiveness  gives 
a  taste  for  suitable  food,  no  more.  In  a  healthy  state 
(suitable  food  is  the  object  it  desires  and  takes  pleasure 
lin.  It  may  vary  its  amount  of  delight  in  these 
jvarious  articles  ;  but  it  can  never  delight  in  the 
rtaste  of  one  article,  in  exclusion  from,  or  more  or  less 
■than  in  another  article,  which  is  exactly  like  the  fii-st ; 
nor  can  the  eater  be  benefited  by  the  one  and 
injured  by  the  other.  This  is  impossible.  The 
rSame  course  of  reasoning  holds  good  towards  every 
jlother  faculty.  So  I  forbear.  I  pronounce  his 
[statement  untrue,  if  he  means  it  in  the  sense  in 
jwhich  I  have  argued  the  opposite  iu  all  my  letters. 

We  come  now  to  the  argument  in  Mr.  Bailouts 
reply  to  our  letter  on  the  Fowlers.  He  states  that 
[**  Amativeness  in  man  has  two  radical  character- 
listic  manifestations, — a  sensual  and  a  spiritual." 
I  That  the  *' sensual  manifestation  is  rightful  and 
jinnocent  only  in  true  dual  marriage;''  *'but  that  its 
imental  and  spiritual  manifestation,  besides  having 
one  sacred  connubial  center,  has  various  legitimate 
concentric  spheres.'*  To  prove  the  above  proposi- 
tion, viz  :  That  sensual  Amativeness  is  not  "  co- 
extensive with  its  spiritual,"  and  that  the  former 
manifestation  can  be  '* rightful  and  innocent  only  in 
dual  marriage,''  he  proceeds,  as  in  a  former  letter, 
to  divorce  a  fractional  part  of  amativeness,  and  to 
put  it  on  the  plane  with  the  animal.  I  give  his 
words :  **  Amativeness,  as  to  its  lower  develop- 
ments and  sensual  manifestations,  is  properly  an 
animal  propensity.  Man  has  it  in  common  with  all 
the  lower  animals.  Amativeness,  in  its  highest 
5 


SQi  FREE    LOVE. 

developments  and  manifestations,  is  proper  to  man 
as  a  spiritual  and  moral  intelligence.  The  animals 
are  incapable  of  spiritual  amativeness.  The  more 
animal-humans  are  capable  of  it  only  in  a  low 
degree,  and  many  have  scarcely  a  conception  of  it, 
much  less  a  decent  appreciation.  It  is  plain,  then, 
that  sensual  amativeness  exists  and  ultimates  itself 
without  spiritual  amativeness,  as  in  beasts  and  very 
sensual  humans.'*  Really,  if  these  statements  are 
true,  some  persons,  who  are  in  the  form  of  men.  are 
not,  correctly  speaking,  men.  Either  they  were 
never  finished,  or  they  have  become  so  diseased 
that  their  manhood  is  dead  and  gone.  Nothing  but 
the  beast-man  remains  to  animate  the  material  form. 
The  breath  of  God,  which  was  to  stamp  his  image, 
is  gone.  But  what  has  this  essence  of  lust  to  do 
with  the  doctrines  of  Free  Love  ?  Must  we  come 
to  this  for  our  analogies  and  arguments  ?  Shall  in- 
humans  and  beasts  be  summoned  upon  the  stand  to 
settle  the  higher  law  of  progressed  and  healthy 
humanity  ?  We  are  convinced  that  Mr.  Ballou  is 
serious  in  this  kind  of  analogy,  and  we  submit  to 
follow.  Such  reasoning  as  this  has  been  so  far  his 
first  and  main  argument.  We  have  replied  to  it 
part,  when  found  in  a  former  letter.  We  will  e 
deavor  to  do  it  justice  here.  First,  then,  we  consent, 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  to  the  putting  awa}''  of 
sensual  amativeness.  (To  do  which  we  believe  to 
be  a  natural  impossibility  ;  and  if  it  were  possible,  in 
man,  it  would  be  '  adultery,  per  se/)  What  does  Mr. 
Ballou  gain  in  this  argument  ?  He  separates  the 
lower  of  amativeness  from,  the  higher,  and  puts  it 
under  laws  inharmonious  with  the  higher,  because 
the  former  is  animal.  If  this  were  proper,  it  might 
in  part  destroy  my  argument  from  analogy,   but  it 


I 


AN    EXPLANATION.  51 


ould  prove  nothing  against  my  doctrine,  and 
iiothing  in  favor  of  his.  Let  us  see  where  his 
malogy,  in  comparing  man  on  this  point  with  the 
)east,  will  carry  him.  However  distasteful  this  may 
)e  to  us,  or  to  the  more  refined  feelings  of  the 
*eader,  it  seems  to  be  necessary,  and  so  we  hope  it 
nay  prove  profitable.  We  consent  then,  Mr.  BaUou, 
;o  go  with  you  into  the  field  of  animal  life.  We  are 
i^ound  to  look  into  the  nature  and  order  of  the  love 
relations  of  animal ;  to  look  into  the  laws  of  their 
,toarriage.  We  find  here,  if  we  take  the  whole 
1  ["ange,  that  variety  is  the  rule  of  love,  and  at  the 
;  baost  a  partial  duality  is  the  exception.  God  has  so 
,  jbreated,  and  we  will  not  arraign  his  wisdom.  Rea- 
,  ler,  we  are  now  in  the  presence  of  beasts  and  birds, 
—•life  that  walks,  and  life  that  flies.  There  is  no 
iidultery  here.  If  any  man  think  evil,  the  evil  is  in 
himself.  These,  God's  creatures,  are  right.  We  find 
imativeness  an  upper  and  leading  faculty,  all  right 
'or  beasts.  So  its  action  is  right  for  beasts.  Not 
50  in  man.  In  him  it  is  behind  and  below  in 
pie  brain,  and  so  should  not  lead  and  control. 
Then  is  the  analogy  we  are  pursuing  truth- 
■ul  ?  We  think  not.  But  we  are  pledged  to 
bllow  it  to  the  bottom  of  our  friend's  argument.  We 
3ress  the  inquiry,  then,  upon  our  friend.  Are  the 
ove  ultimations  of  animals  generally  exclusive  and 
lual  ?  We  expect  a  catagorical  reply  and  its  proo'*. 
3ur  opponent,  we  hope,  will  be  consistent  with  his 
mimal  analogies.  Again,  are  these  ultimations  of 
ove  or  passion  less  elevated  and  less  proper,  when 
hej  are  in  the  order  of  variety,  and  so  in  harmony 
mth  what  seems  to  be  the  rule  of  their  natures, 
ihan  when  they  manifest  themselves  in  a  partially, 
md   perhaps  sometimes  entirely  in  an  exclusively 


62  FREE    LOVE. 

dual  order,  and  so  in  harmony  with  what  seems  t 
be  at  least  the  law  of  exception,  even  among  animals 
Our  friend  has  insisted  on  taking  us  to  the  animal  t 
settle  the  laws  for  man — and  we  now  wish  to  hay 
full  justice  done  to  his  arguments,  so  we  urge  thesj 
questions  upon  him.  If  we  draw  any  inference 
from  the  animal  analogy,  it  is  that  man  will  com  pre 
hend  all  orders,  or  every  variety  of  order,  unless  h 
has  outgrown  the  exceptional  law  of  animals.  ^ 
a  fact,  man  in  his  nature  does  comprehend  the  entii 
natures  of  all  below  him.  So  says  science.  Hi 
analogy,  carried  out,  if  it  were  truthful,  would  favc 
our  views  vastly  more  than  his.  But  we  have  n( 
felt  the  need  of  such  aid.  It  is  the  love  relations  q 
man  which  we  wish  to  elevate  and  harmonize,  an 
we  think  this  should  be  settled  solely  by  the  laws  o 
man's  mind.  Any  truthful  appeal  to  the  analogy 
the  law  of  animal  creation,  can  never  favor  exclusiv 
dual  marriage,  but  its  opposite.  We  pledge  ou 
selves  to  sustain  this  proposition  when  it  is  furthe 
called  for.  I  return  now  to  say  to  the  reader,  th^ 
this  whole  argument  of  two  radical  and  diveri^ 
manifestations  of  amativeness  in  man,  is  unphilc 
sophical  and  absurd.  If  such  a  separation  wei; 
possible,  it  would  leave  the  man  in  a  perverted  an* 
abnormal  state.  But  it  is  not  true  that  any  ma 
ever  ultimates  love  entirely  disconnected  with  ii 
spiritual  element.  I  will  demonstrate  this  statemeni 
If  God  had  made  this  possible — the  race  in  h< 
propagations  might  so  retrograde  as  to  become  beasts, 
or  something  like  them,  and  so  on  still  lower.  In 
this  case  there  would  be  an  absolute  law  of 
retrogression,  instead  of  a  law  of  progression  in 
man.  The  offspring  of  such  coition  could  not  be* 
human ;  as  like  will  beget  its  like.     Does  the  reader 


tsTi 


AX   EXPLANATION.  53 

ask  for  more  ?  We  are  most  glad  to  know,  for  the 
hopes  of  humanity,  that  such  a  separation  of  a 
faculty,  or  of  the  faculties,  is  impossible,  and  so  the 
idea  is  most  absurd.  We  proceed  in  our  quotations  : 
''  Sexual  coition  is  the  natural,  universal,  uniform 
and  inevitable  ultimate  of  sensul  amativeness." 
**But  how  is  it  with  spiritual  amativeness  ?  It  may 
descend  into,  blend  with,  and  santify  sensual  Ama- 
tiveness as  in  the  case  of  the  true  dual  marriage. 
But  sexual  coition  is  not  its  own  proper  and  inevi- 
table ultimate."  We  wait  almost  impatiently  for 
proof  that  this  spiritual  love  may  not  sanctify  the 
non-exclusive  manifestations  of  this  sexual  love.  In 
every  reply  Mr.  Ballou  assumes  the  only  point  to  be 
proved  on  his  part.  We  tell  the  reader  that  this 
higher  lore  will  more  fully  sanctify  the  lower,  when 
the  lower  acts  behind  and  in  harmony  with  the  laws 
of  the  higher,  and  we  argue  directly  to  prove  it. 
We  let  the  lower  strengthen  the  higher,  and  receive 
its  blessing  by  its  absolute  submission  to  the  laws 
of  the  higher,  and  not  the  higher  come  down  to 
bless  the  flesh,  by  submissionn  and  conformity  to  the 
lower  law,  or  to  the  supposed  lower  law.  We  now 
come  to  deny  our  brother's  main  proposition  in  the 
quotation.  We  contend  that  coition  is  a  natural 
ultimate  of  spiritual  love.  That  the  leading  attribute 
of  conjugal  love,  in  a  healthy  state,  is  spiritual ; 
that  it  is  non-exclusive,  and  that  it  is  naturally 
coitionary  in  its  ultimates.  Sensual  love  is  some- 
times and  in  some  cases  partially  satisfied  by  various 
little  love  manifestations  short  of  coition.  It  often 
is  comparatively  so,  without  any  material  manifesta- 
tions. It  is  in  youth.  So  spiritual  love  is  often 
comparatively  satisfied  without  the  act  of  coition. 
But  no  sexual  love  in  any  of  its  phases  can  be  full 
6* 


64  FREE   LOVE. 

and  complete  without  its  coitionary  ultimate.    Witb 
out  this  it  never  attains  to  its  hight,  perfection  ani 
entireness.     Mr.  Ballou  represents  the  spiritual  at 
descending  to  bless  and  sanctify  the  sensual  in  duall 
marriage.     Will  he  deny  that  the  spiritual  love  is  atl 
home  in,  and  is  a  leading  attribute  in  the  conjugal  ?l 
Will  he  deny  that  spiritual  love  is  its  very  essencol 
and  inner  hfe  ?     His  language  plainly  conveys  thisl 
idea ;  that  it  is  not.     This  is  a  vital  point.     We  j 
hope  our  friend  and  the  reader  will  bear  with  the! 
closeness  with  which  we  pursue  this  subject,   if  \t\ 
does   occupy  some  space.     We  have  meant  to  so  J 
write  our  proposition  for  this  discussion  that  we  and 
our  opponent  should  be  obliged  to  grapple  with  the 
very  heart  of  the  whole  controversy,  with  the  age, 
and  with  reformers,   touching  this  subject  of  sub- 
jects— marriage.     We  must  not  pass  it  superficially. 
We  certainly  understand  our  opponent  to  deny  the 
vital  and  essential    relations  of  spiritual  amative- 
ness,  in  constituting  the  leading  substance  of  coition- 
ary  and    so  connubial  love.     I   think  he  does  not 
harmonize  on  this  with  the  Fowlers  ;  with  Sweden- 
borg  he  does  not,  and  many  others  of  his  dual  order, 
but  much   nearer   with   the   Shakers.     I^o  matter. 
What    is    truth  ?     With    us,    connubiality    is   not 
synonymous    with    sensuality.     We    promise     thfe 
reader  that  when  we  are  converted  to  this   doctrine, 
we  shall  join  the  Shakers,  at  once,  on  this  subject. 
But  in  the  name  of  humanity,  we  protest  against  the 
whole  of  it.     Coition,  for  its  most  material  object  — 
the    procreation    of  offspring — should    be,    in    its 
leading  substance  and  features,  spiritual.     As   man 
is  a  unit,  and  as  he  is  more  spiritual  than  animal  or 
sensual,  so  in  his  act  to  beget  his  like,  it  should  be 
more  spiritual  than  sensual.     I  speak  of  the  true 


AN   EXPLANATION.  66 

man,  and  I  still  insist  on  the  analogy,  that  the  lower 
man  should  keep  behind,  and  harmonize  with,  the 
higher.  If  Mr.  Ballou  still  insists  that  my  human 
analogy  is  false  ;  can  he  not  give  us  a  better  substi- 
tute in  disproving  it  than  his  analogy  of  man  and 
animals  in  common  ?  We  have  read  his  replies  with 
our  utmost  care,  and  read  them  asrain  and  ap-ain, 
and  we  affirm  that  there  is  not  one  word  of  direct 
argument  to  prove  the  impropriety  of  a  variety  in 
connubial  love.  He  repeats  the  statements  of  his 
belief  that  coitionary  love  should  only  be  in  true  dual 
marriage  ;  and  tries  to  destroy  my  analogy  by  intro- 
ducing another.  But  were  I  to  admit  the  force  of 
his  animal  analogy,  and  every  word  of  real  argu- 
ment in  his  letters,  even  then  he  has  not  taken  the 
first  step  to  prove  his  proposition,  and  his  exclusively 
dual  order.  Where  is  the  proof  of  his  *' adultery, 
]per  se,'''  in  a  variety  in  love  ultimates?  Not  a  line 
can  I  find.  In  behalf  of  the  friends  of  Free  Love, 
whose  doctrine  and  practice  he  has  formerly  declared 
to  be  the  foulest  of  the  foul,  and  adultery  by  itself, 
I  ask  him  to  prove  his  position  in  season  for  a  reply 
before  this  discussion  closes.  In  view  of  his  past 
relations  to  this  subject,  and  of  his  present  position, 
as  an  opponent  of  Frfee  Love,  it  is  not  enough  that 
he  satisfy  himself  in  simply  replying  to  my  argu- 
ments. The  discussion  was  proposed  as  a  mutual 
ajQfair,  between  friends,  to  promote  the  cause  of  truth, 
each  of  us  believing,  as  I  trust,  that  truth  would  be 
elicited  by  it,  whether  our  opinions  were  all  saved 
or  not.  By  proof  I  mean  more  especially  direct 
argument  from  the  laws  of  mind,  not  mere  inferences 
from  history.  I  have  not  ti'oubled  the  reader  with 
the  foul  history  of  dual  marriage,  as  a  presumptive 
argument  for  the  trial  of  Free  Love. 


56  FREE   LOVE. 

Because  all  of  the  higher  and  spiritual  faculties 
are  more  or  less  non-exclusive,  and  in  that  sense 
universal  in  their  nature,  it  does  not  follow  as  a 
practical  fact  that  they  should  ultimate  themselves 
to  the  same  extent.  This  is  naturally  impossible.  I 
love  all  the  human  brotherhood,  non-exclusively,  as 
I  have  used  this  latter  word  in  this  discussion,  yet  I 
pass  multitudes  with  a  bare  recognition.  I  carry  out 
no  particular  acts  of  kindness,  or  *' special  and  kind 
attentions.'*  It  is  not  necessary  or  called  for.  So 
a  man  may  love  woman  as  such,  with  a  true 
universal,  or  non-exclusive  connubial  love,  and 
it  be  impossible  and  undesirable  to  so  universally 
consummate  this  love ;  while  absolute  exclusiveness 
would  be  unnatural  in  either  case — in  any  of  the 
loves.  There  are  mental  laws  and  circumstances 
which  should  harmoniously  settle  each  man*s  ac- 
tual and  more  intimate  associates,  in  his  acts  of 
social  enjoyment,  or  acts  of  charitable  utility.  And 
yet  he  is  not  absolutely  exclusive  in  any  or  all  of 
these  faculties.  The  well-developed  mind  is  never 
universal  or  absolutely  exclusive  as  to  his  associates 
in  relation  to  the  human  brotherhood — or  in  any  of 
the  social  or  love  relation.  These  remarks  have  had 
reference  to  some  part  of  Mr.  Bailouts  reply,  which 
I  thought  it  not  necessary  to  quote. 

By  the  better  laws  of  civihzation,  with  woman  in 
general,  I  may  bow  the  knee  before  God  in  social 
prayer  in  freedom  ;  I  may  enjoy  mental  repasts  with 
her  in  freedom.  Benevolence  may  give  to  her  the 
fruits  of  acquisitiveness  in  freedom;  charity  and 
justice  may  call  to  their  aid  all  the  power  and  utility 
in  destructiveness  and  combativeness  for  the  protec- 
tion and  defense  of  all  women  in  freedom  ;  I  may 
gratuitously  supply  the  wants  of  inhabit! veness  and 


AN   EPXLANATION.  67 

alimentiveness  in  her  in  freedom  ;  I  may  give  tlie  ad- 
hesive kiss  to  all  in  freedom ;  I  may  supply  any  child 
from  my  paternal  fount  in  freedom  :  I  may  supply 
my  own  paternal  desire  by  the  caressing  or  adoption 
of  any  child  in  freedom.  What  may  we  not  do  and 
enjoy  innocently  in  freedom,  by  the  laws  of  the 
Fowlers,  Mr.  Ballou  and  civilization?  Every  thing 
except  a  fractional  part  of  a  sentiment  called  ama- 
tiveness,  all  else  is  non-exclusive,  or  absolutely  free 
in  a  healthy  state,  or  under  the  control  of  the  higher 
man.  For  every  other  freedom  is  allowed  to  be 
health,  and  health  is  allowed  to  be  freedom.  For 
every  other  absolute  exclusiveness  is  considered  a 
disease.  For  this  fraction  of  the  brain,  anything  but 
entire  exclusiveness  is  disease,  per  se.  This  fraction 
is  cut  off  from  its  other  and  higher  half,  and  held  in 
bonds  as  a  criminal.  *'It  has  been  a  criminal.** 
Well,  why  not  put  the  whole  man  in  bonds  ?  Every 
faculty,  and  every  part  of  a  faculty,  has  been  wo- 
fully  criminal.  Why  not  rush  back  to  slavery  and 
the  dark  ages  for  our  laws  of  safety  ?  **  All  men, 
except  those  who  govern  the  rest,  are,  per  se,  dan- 
gerous in  freedom  !'*  It  requires  strong  proof  to 
sustain  such  monstrous  inconsistency.  The  past,  with 
her  pall  of  blackness  still  hanging  over  her,  cannot 
prove  it.  The  future  will  laugh  at  it  with  pity  and 
astonishment. 


58  TREK    LOVB. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

MR.  BALLOU    CONTINUED. HIS  BOOK. 

Mr.  Ballou  asks,  in  our  discussion,  what  "  need  " 
there  is  of  Free  Love, — ^and  what  "  good  *'  will  come 
of  it  ?     Even  admitting  my  mind  argument,  of  the 
non-exclusive   nature   of  the   connubial  attraction, 
he  virtually  asks  what  utility  will  come  of  such  free^ 
dom.  Others,  who  read  us,  will  ask  the  same  question. 
'We  reply — the  normal  action  of  every  faculty  and 
-every  law  of  mind,  is  always  of  utility.     A  similar 
-"need*'  exits,  and  a  similar  "good*'  will  follow  the 
.freeing  of  this,  which  results  from  the  free  action 
■  of  every  other  faculty.      Such  freedom  is  always 
.  strengthenings  refining ^  and  elevating.     It  is  so,  and 
-will  be  so  on  this,  in  its  temperate,  healthy,  and  free 
•action.      The  diseased   action  of  any  faculty  may 
bring  untold  evil.     One  man,  or  one  woman,  may 
ilive  alone — a  hermit.     So  one  man  and  one  wo- 
man   may  live  in    entire  isolation   from   all  other 
society  ;  but  such  dual  hermitage  is  not  natural.    It 
more  or  less  starves  all  the  human  faculties.     That 
state  of  mind  which,  from  choice,  selects  such  a 
situation,  is  sickly  and  contracted.     No  man  and 
woman  can   progress,   and  elevate  themselves,   as 
easily,  and  as  fully,  in  such  disconnection  from  all 
i  others.    A  varietv  in  the  action  of  every  feature  of 


MR.    BALLOU.  69 

connubial  love,  is  refining  and  elevating.  Love 
always  elevates  and  refines.  Of  course,  a  variety  in 
this  should  be  governed  by  the  most  exalted  wis- 
dom. So  should  the  action,  and  the  variety  in 
adhesiveness.  When,  and  so  far  as,  the  latter  is  not, 
it  dissipates  and  debases.  Each  faculty  has  its 
proper  laws,  and  its  ^'natural  restraints y'^  but  not  to 
absolute  exclusiveness.  Some  minds,  in  a  healthy 
state,  require  more  society  than  others.  I  will  be 
understood,  if  I  have  to  write  "  line  upon  line — 
precept  upon  precept."  We  insist  that,  as  our 
philosophy  deals  alike  with  every  faculty,  and  is  in 
harmony  with  itself,  while  that  of  our  opponents 
does  not — and  is  not, — it  is  for  those  who  make  the 
exceptloriy  to  prove  their  exception.  And  we  urge  — 
we  entreat  the  friends  of  exclusive  marriage,  to 
deal  less  with  uncertain  consequences^  and  more 
with  God's  eternal  laws  of  order,"  as  read  in  the 
philosophy  of  mind.  We  here  say — once,  and  we 
hope,  for  all, — we  do  not  consider  mere  inferences 
from  history,  especially  any  history  which  we  can 
obtain,  as  direct  argument,  or  as  sufficient  to  meet 
and  refute  the  settled  or  sure  princples  of  mind. 

One  more  allusion  to  the  discussion,  and  we  pass 
to  Mr.  Bailouts  book.  We  record  a  noticable  coin- 
cidence. While  Mr.  B.  was  laboring  to  destroy  our 
analogy  between  the  human  faculties,  by  comparing 
the  act  of  coition  in  man  "  with  animals  in  com- 
mon,*' his  friend  Hewitt  was  arguing  in  his  (Mr. 


60  FREE    LOVE. 

Hewitt's)  paper,  in  opposition  to  certain  supposed  or 
real  Free  Love  defenders,  —  that  because  animals 
were  promiscuous,  it  was  no  evidence  that  man 
should  be.  Not  one  word  does  Mr.  H.  write  directly 
to  prove  his  own  dual  order.  (On  what  grounds 
shall  this  always  be  taken  for  granted  ?)  A  Lady 
steps  in  here,  and  intimates,  if  man  was  like  the 
animals,  there  would  be  no  good  objection  to  a 
"variety.''  Our  unknown  fair  one,  (she  does  not 
favor  us  with  her  name)  writes,  —  "Remove  the 
restraints  of  reason  and  conscience  imposed  by  love, 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  animal  passion  should 
not  claim  a  variety."  To  us  this  is  an  entire  nega- 
tion of  Mr.  Ballou's  analogy, — and  yet  he  becomes  her 
very  ready  endorser.  (See  P.  Christian,  Dec.  30, 
1854.)  So  does  Mr.  Wright.  Where  shall  we  find 
our  opponents  in  relation  to  this  animal  argument? 
We  hope  their  whereabouts  will  be  better  settled  on 
so  important  a  point,  before  we  have  occasion  to 
print  another  edition  of  our  book.  It  will  so  much 
shorten  our  labor.  We  did  not  allude  to  the  animal^ 
except  in  reply  to  Mr.  Ballou.  We  did  not  consider 
it  necessary  in  a  discussion  about  man.  Still  it  was 
not  improper.  We  ask  our  opponents  then  what 
position  the  animal  is  to  hold  in  the  future  of  this 
controversy.  We  choose  at  present  io  follow.  It  is 
not  fair  that  the  same  opponent  should  hang  on  to 
these  opposite  horns  at  the  same  time,  or  change  as 
seeming  necessity  requires. 


MR.    BALLOU.  ^I 

Reader,  in  making  the  use  wliich  I  have  of  tlie 
discussion, — I  have  taken  the  utmost  care  not  to  do 
Mr.  Ballou  any  injustice,  and  if,  in  any  thing,  or  in 
any  statement,  he  thinks  I  am  incoorrect,  I  ask 
him  to  point  it  out  to  me,  and  I  will  explain  or  I'c- 
tract,  as  the  truth  may  require.  Though  "\ve  are 
wide  apart  as  professed  reformers,  I  am  still  his 
personal  friend,  and  I  suppose  him  to  be  a  friend  to 
me.  We  both  deal  sharply  with  what  we  conceive 
to  be  the  errors  and  faults  of  our  friends.  Mr. 
Ballou  had  felt  it  to  be  his  duty,  as  a  leader  and  re- 
former, (I  consider  him  a  law  reformer),  to  arraign 
and  condemn  all  Free  Love  doctrines  and  practices. 
This  became  more  frequent  and  severe,  in  his  paper. 
I  could  and  did  sympathise  with  him  in  part,  in  re- 
lation to  some  of  the  evils  connected  with  Free  Love, 
as  with  dual  marriage,  in  the  present  undeveloped 
and  perverted  state  of  the  race.  But  he  made  no 
exception.  He  seemed  to  feel  himJelf  called  in 
conscience  to  do  what  he  could  to  exterminate  it,  as 
a  whole,  and  in  all  of  its  parts.  I  visited  him.  We 
spent  hours  in  friendly,  but  in  private  discussion. 
I  asked  hini,  if  ever  he  gave  the  subject  a  full  and 
fair  hearing  in  his  paper,  as  he  had  before  this 
given  ever}^  other  question  of  great  interest, — to 
discuss  it  with  me.  When  he  thought  the  time  had 
come,  and  was  at  leasure  to  do  so,  he  accepted  my 
friendly  challenge,  and  the  discussion  followed. 

I  fully  admit  there  are  many  evils  now  connected 
6 


a  FREE    LOVE. 

with  Free  Love.  Injustice  is  sometimes  done  under 
its  cloak.  But  I  believe  its  friends  will  *•  learn  wis- 
dom by  the  things  which  they  suffer,"  and  rise  to  a 
greater  and  better  harmony.  I  know  some  have  so 
riseii.  So  far,  the  various  efforts  at  community 
have  caused  great  suffering  and  loss  of  property. 
Perhaps  some  half  a  million  has  been  expended,  and 
some  over  twenty  societies  failed,  during  the  last 
twenty  years.  And  yet  we  think  the  effort  has  been 
worth  all  it  has  cost.  Free  Love  has  not  done  as  bad, 
or  been  more  a  failure.  Community  and  Free  Love, 
are  both  aUve  and  in  good  health  in  some  places. 
The  real  good  in  both  will  be  saved,  and  rise.  The 
chaff  should  be  blown  away  by  the  winnowing  of 
Providence.  So  let  it  be.  We  were  some  disap- 
pointed in  Mr.  Ballou  on  the  subject  of  our  discus- 
sion, after  all,  but  it  was  not  his  fault.  He  had 
always  been  a  frank  and  open  spoken  man  on  all 
subjects  which  he  met. 

But  to  his  book.  We  did  not  allude  to  Mr.  Ballou, 
when  speaking  in  our  prefece  of  refiyrm  writers  on 
marriage.  We  considered  him,  on  this  subject,  and 
many  others,  more  nearly  allied  to  the  past.  In  most 
of  his  writings  he  stereotypes  to  the  teachings  of 
an  age,  almost  two  thousand  years  ago,  and  seldom 
to  the  higher  law  and  more  spiritual  truths  of  that. 
Still  farther  back,  he  **  builds  tabernacles  to  Moses 
and  Ellas,'*  as  well  as  to  *' Christ."  This  he  does 
to  the  law  phase  of  Christ's  teachings.     For  Christ 


MR.    BALLOU.  6$ 

"was  made  unaer  the  law/*  and  spoke  under  it,  and 
in  parables.  He  wore  the  **  veil/*  as  did  Moses,  to  still 
hide  from  the  many  the  higher  glories  of  the  com- 
ing gospel.  He  still  preached  law  to  the  "  lawless 
and  disobedient.**  (I  presume  Mr.  Ballou  will  con- 
sider the  above  as  a  compliment  to  him.  And  it 
real y  stand  so  in  the  eyes  of  the  majority.)  But 
we  shall  proceed  to  our  views  of  his  case,  and  his 
course.  He  talks  much  in  his  book  of  going 
back  to  "fundamental  principles.**  The  real  import 
of  this,  to  us,  is  simply  his  opinion  as  to  the  main 
truths  of  the  Bible.  To  me,  he  seems  wholly  in- 
capable of  going  below  and  above  all  opinions,  to 
the  absolute  laws  of  mind  ;  incapable  of  going  back 
of  all  revealed  religion,  to  the  Author  of  it ;  of  sim- 
ply reading  nature  in  nature's  book.  He  has  been 
called  **' the  logician.**  He  is  comparativly  logical 
in  discussing  theology,  so  called,  but  never  upon 
the  deep  principles  of  philosophy.  He  is  superficial, 
and  never  at  home,  in  the  latter.  On  turning  to  the 
pages  of  his  book  (see  361)  on  which  he  records 
his  objections  to  Free  Love,  I  was  disappointed.  I 
had  forgotten  that,  after  so  fully  denouncing  our 
views,  he  did  not  even  write  the  first  sentence  of 
argument  to  disprove  them  from  the  laws  of  mind. 
If  such  is  there,  we  have  failed  to  see  it.  Such  as 
it  is,  I  will  give  it  a  passing  notice.  And  yet,  I 
should  not,  in  my  present  book,  if  it  had  emanated 
from  an  author  of  less  note. 


64  FREE    LOVE. 

Mr.  Ballou,  1,  Gives  his  objections  to  Polygamy, 
in  which  we  are  happy  to  agree  with  him. 

**  2,  Promiscuity  of  intimate  sexual  communion  is 
revolting  and  degrading  to  pure  minded  loves.  It 
is  unnatural.  It  comes  from  perverted  amativeness, 
despotism,  artificial  education,  sophistication,  or 
arbitrary  custom.*'  *  *  *  By  *' promiscuity,** 
Mr.  B.  means  the  least  deviation  from  entire  exclu- 
siveness.  More  of  the  .same  sort  follows  our  quota- 
tion. We  simply  reply  to  it  all,  there  is  not  absolutely 
and  necessarily  one  word  of  truth  in  it.  Lust  is 
**  revolting**  always  **toa  pure  minded  Lover; — ** 
Love  never.     We  give  assertion  for  assertion. 

"  3,  Sexual  promiscuity  inevitably  tends  to  moral 
and  social  disorder.  It  sophisticates,  perverts  and 
demoralizes  its  practitioners.  It  stimulates  and  con- 
firms the  lust  of  variety.**     *     *     *     * 

We  are  not  required  to  do  more  than  to  pro- 
nounce all  this  false.  Mr.  Ballou  always  and  every- 
where takes  the  whole  point  of  difference  between 
him  and  the  friends  of  Free  Love  for  granted. 
Namely :  That  the  attraction  for  a  variety  is  lust : 
**  The  lust  of  variety.'*  Before  this,  he  has  taken 
his  position,  and  pronounced  every  such  act  of 
variety  "adultry,  per  se.''  Here,  in  the  presence 
of  his  book,  I  again  challenge  him  or  his  friends,  to 
show  the  first  line  of  his,  of  direct  argument  of  any 
kind,  to  prove  his  position  ;  or  to  show  one  sentence 
where  it  is  not   taken  for  granted.     He  begs  the 


MR.   BALLOU.  ^ 

entire  question.  In  view  of  his  position  in  the  age 
as  a  professed  reformer,  and  of  his  long  and  repeated 
denunciation  of  our  principles  on  this  subject,  we 
have  a  right  to  ask  and  expect  more. 

He  has  written  what  he,  and  perhaps  some  of  his 
friends,  may  consider  argument.  In  justice  to  him, 
the  reader  should  know  that  he  has  abundantly  ap- 
pealed to  the  feelings  and  instincts  of  men.  To 
what  we  shall  call,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  un^ 
developed,  sicMy,  and  perverted  mind.  He  becomes 
sponsor  for  this,  and  pronounces  it  pure.  **The 
natural  instincts  of  true  love  are  against  it,'* — against 
non-exclusiveness,  or  our  freedom.  He  asserts  that 
this  "instinct  is  not  selfish,  but  implanted  by  God 
to  ensure  moral  and  social  order."  We  tell  him 
that  a  morbid  sickly  state  of  mind  knows  no  abso- 
lute "purity,**  or  an  entirely  normal  development  of 
"love.**  We  admit  that  the  undeveloped  "instincts" 
of  a  misguided  amativeness,  are  sometimes  against 
our  views.  We  find  men  on  this,  as  he  finds  them 
on  war,  and  resistance  of  evil ;  and  he  echoes  back 
to  us  on  this  all  of  their  old  arguments  to  him,  in 
defence  of  war,  or  an  injurious  resistance.  They 
tell  him,  the  "  instincts  *'  of  man  are  against  him, — 
or  are  in  favor  of  resisting  to  the  death,  when  neces- 
sary, an  intruding  enemy.  That  this  instinct 
of  self-preservation,  is  "unselfish,  and  from  God," 
and  shows  his  will  as  to  the  true  manner  of  keeping 
order."  This  injurious  resistance  is  more  often  re- 
6* 


I' 


Q^  FREE    LOVE. 

sorted  to  in  defence  of  Mr.  B.'s  exclusive  "  instinct' 
in  marriage,  than  any  where  else.  We  congratula 
him  in  this  case  —  the  marriage  question  —  on  find- 
ing himself  with  the  majority,  and  entirely  on  the 
2'>opular  side. 

But  to  his  book — "  amativeness,  like  all  the  pas- 
sional appetites,  has  no  inherent  self-government." 
True.  *  *  *  ''safety  lies  in  subordinating  am- 
ativeness strictly  to  reason  and  the  moral  senti- 
ments." True,  it  always  is  in  a  strictly  healthy 
mind  ; — in  a  perfect  development  of  connubial  love. 
Look  at  Mr.  B.*s  consistency  !  He  truthfully  com- 
pares amativeness  to  all  the  other  "passional 
appetites."  His  "reason  and  moral  sentiments," 
put  every  other  "passion  and  appetite "  w^zcfer  non- 
exclusive laws  ; — and  he  would  consider  the  man  as 
void  of  both  "  reason  and  moral  sentiments,"  who 
should  think  of  doing  otherwise.  Then  he  places 
amativeness,  or  a  part  of  it,  under  entire  exclusive 
law.  Reader,  look  at  the  depth  and  logic  in  this  1 
It  is  "  simply  contemptible."  An  appeal  to  sickly 
instinct  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  so  irrational  a 
position.  Eeason  and  a  healthy  instinct  repudiates  it 
all. 

Mr.  Ballon  goes  on  at  some  length,  to  give  his 
views  of  the  terrible  consequences,  which,  he  thinks 
must  follow  the  spread  of  Free  Love.  As  to  this, 
we  know  more  about  it  than  our  friend.  He  ex- 
communicates his  sexual  slaves,  who  rebel  under 


MR.    BALLOU.  OT 

the  marriage  yoke.''*  We  have  long  since  freed 
ours  from  that  yoke.  We  know  something  of  the 
society  of  our  modern  anti-exclusive  Jamaica's.  *ff 
Again — "  4,  Sexual  promiscuity  must  degrade  and 
oppress  woman.''  Reader,  in  the  book,  there  is 
nearly  two  pages,  following  the  above  proposition, 
of  his  sort  of  argument.  Having  settled  it  in  his 
own  mind  that  all  deviation  from  dual  order  is  the 
promptings  of  lust,  he  goes  on  to  describe  and  dis- 
cuss the  sure  consequences  of  an  entire  reign  of 
lust.  Admitting  his  premises,  his  conclusions  are 
safe.  If  any  reader  has  his  book,  he  can  turn  to  it. 
(It  is  aside  from  the  first  intention  of  our  book  to 
give  all  of  these  secondary,  but  still  important 
questions,  a  full  place.  Others  have  written  upon 
them  better  than  we  could  do,  and  we  must  refer 
the  reader  to  them.  We  do  not  desire  to  supercede 
any  other  publication  which  has  gone  before  us. 
We  refer  the  reader  to  a  Tract,  containing  a  dis- 
cussion between  "Stephen  P.  Andrews,  Henry 
James,  and  Horace  Greeley,"  and  published  by  Mr. 
Andrews  ;  and  to  letters  since  published  in  the 
Tribune,  and  Mr.  Andrew's  reply  in  Nichols'  Jour- 
nal. Nowhere  else  can  both  sides  be  found  better 
handled.  I  ought  to  add — Mr.  Nichols'  book  on 
Marriage,  replies  at  some  length  to  such  conserva- 
tive objections  as  we  find  in  Mr.  Ballou's  book.     I 


*    I  simply  refer  to  an  act  of  his  society  in  dismissing  a 
member. 


IP  FREE    LOVE. 

iwoula  meet  them  with  pleasure,  in  any  paper  open 
<to  me.  But  I  am  set  against  making  my  present 
work  too  long.  I  confess  it  to  be  a  book  of  "  one 
idea.*'  But  it  is  a  central,  a  pivotal,  idea — and 
the  one  on  which  the  main  hinge  of  civilization 
hangs. 

Mr.  Ballon  does  not  diiSfer  as  much  from  us  as  at 
first  sight  it  would  appear,  in  view  of  our  contra- 
dictions of  him.  He,  in  every  line,  is  in  truth, 
writinof  of  diseased  amativeness  :  —  of  what  Mr. 
Davis  calls  "Extremeism.''  He  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  have  the  most  distant  conception  of  what  I 
call  entire  health.  He  always,  or  nearly  always^ 
degrades  amativeness.  We  confess,  in  the  past,  it 
has  degraded  itself.  Still  we  write  of  a  healthy 
mind  : — of  a  healthy  attraction.  We  write  of  love, 
not  lust.  Love  is  healthy,  and  is  under  the  control 
of  the  wisdom  of  reason,  and  the  moral  sentiments  ; 
and  not  under  "  carnality."  The  reign  of  sexual 
selfishness,  we  do  not  call  a  healthy  connubial  love. 
We  deprecate  the  morbid  and  irregular  action  of  any 
faculty.  Such  fruits  are  often  terrible.  Too  ter- 
rible for  human  pen  to  describe.  Mr.  Ballou  and 
ourselves  agree  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  amativeness, 
as  well  as  all  other  sentiments,  have  been,  and  still 
are,  more  or  less  diseased.  He  leaves  no  room,  ex* 
cept  through  law, — the  law  of  exclusive  marriage — 
for  its  coming  health.  If  it  were  here  our  first 
object  to  discuss  the  way  of  salvation  for  so  sickly  a 


MR.    BALLOU.  9i 

race,  we,  most  certainly,  should  propose  to  mix  a 
little  gospel  freedom  with  our  remedies.  He  insists 
that  any  deviation  from  absolute  exclusiveness  will 
increase  the  malady.  And,  like  the  Physician,  who 
should  advise  to  the  gratification  of  the  craving  of 
a  dispeptic  stomach  for  its  cure,  he  insists  upon 
compliance  with  what  to  us  are  the  immoral 
cravings  of  a  worse  than  dispeptic  "  instinct," 
as  a  means  to  its  desired  health.  Perhaps  even 
lie  does  not  mean  all  this.  He  may  have  little 
hope  of  a  coming  cure  ;  and  so  labors  more  to 
stay  its  further  encroachments.  In  one  point  of 
view  he  is  consistent  with  himself.  Though  a  non- 
resistant,  he  believes  in  confining  criminals, — ^dan- 
gerous criminals.  He  finds  amativeness  to  be  such 
a  criminal.  So  it  is  at  least  wise  to  confine  it  to  the 
exclusive  marriage  yoke.  I  must  confess  to  no  little 
sympathy  with  him  in  this,  when,  and  so  far  as  it  is 
thus  ungovernable  and  dangerously  criminal.  I  am 
not  disposed  to  quarrel  with  the  past  for  her  sexual 
discipline.  Not  in  the  main,  with  the  shakers.  It 
is  even  possible,  that  Jesus  was  right  in  favoring, — 
in  speaking  favorably  of  a  man's  making  himself  a 
literal  "  Eunuch  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake," 
or  the  sake  of  purity,  peace,  and  happiness.  This, 
was  truly  an  unnatural  remedy,  to  meet  a  very  bad 
and  perhaps  really  an  unnatural  disease  ; — and  pos- 
sibly better  than  the  entire  reign  of  lust.  Perhaps 
better  than  to  commit,  and  be  hung  for  rape.     This 


70  FREE    LOVE. 

was  literally  removing,  an  ''offending"  member. 
I  say  then,  in  view  of  the  terrible  diseases  of  the 
past,  I  will  not  judge  the  sufferer  too  harshly,  for 
her  equally  terrible  remedies,  though  they  may  seem 
to  me  unnatural  and  unphilosophical.  They  could 
not  do  as  we  can  do.  I  will  respect  Jesus  in  living 
a  practical  life,  like  the  sect  of  Esses  of  his  day, — 
and  not  marrying  in  any  form ; — if,  on  the  whole,  he 
considered  it  wise  and  best  so  to  do.  His  life 
lacked  a  wholeness  andentirenessin  development  and 
experience.  But  perhaps  it  was  the  best  he  could 
then  do.  So  we  judge  not  the  past.  My  great 
objection  to  Mr.  Ballou  is,  that  he  does  not  leave 
room  in  his  marriage  teachings  for  man's  progres- 
sion and  "restoration  ;*'  for  all  which  is  really  his 
present  and  coming  health.  Even  if  the  exclusive 
dual  instinct  in  the  marriages  of  civilization  has, 
on  the  whole,  been  the  best  for  the  plane  of  civiliza- 
tion—  of  this  we  are  not  sure,  and  so  do  not  judge, 
that  instinct  is  not  adapted  to,  or  suitable  for  the  har- 
mony of  the  future.  It  will  fall  before  it.  So,  if  Mr. 
Ballou  still  feels  it  to  be  his  duty  to  represent  the 
**  Moses  '*  of  this  age,  and  make  laws,  and  write  for 
the  confinement  of  the  "animal*' — man,  I  would 
fain  persuade  him  to  leave  room  in  his  faith,  and  in 
his  propositions,  for  me  and  my  friends,  to  write  in 
defence  of  freedom  for  the  God-man.  God  bless  the 
Moses  of  each  a^e.  But  a  double  blessinor  will  ever 
attend   the    Christ  —  and  the  Christs  of  each  as-o. 


MR.    BALLOF.  ff 

Ishmael  should  not  war  against  Isaac, — nor  should 
Isaac  be  unjust  to  Ishmael ; — even  though  the  one 
does  represent  bondage,  and  the  other  freedom. 

In  short,  Mr.  B.,  on  the  subject  of  exclusive 
marriage,  writes  as  we  might  suppose  any  good  con- 
servative mind  would  have  done,  during  the  past 
few  hundred  years.  I  suppose  he,  as  well  as  we, 
consider  it  safe  to  follow  "fundamental  principles," 
or  the  "  eternal  laws  of  order,"  over  all  consequences. 
We  wish  to  call  him  back  to  the  original — so  far  as 
man  is  concerned — source  of,  and  to  the  search  for, 
these  laws.  We  say,  then,  if  he  will  once  more 
take  his  pen,  and  attempt  either  or  all  of  the  fol- 
lowing things : — 1st,  To  reply  to  my  mind  argu- 
ment— of  the  non-exclusive  nature  of  the  attraction 
of  each  and  every  part  of  the  human  brain,  (as  I 
have  made  my  meaning  understood  on  that  propo- 
sition) ;  or  2nd,  If  he  should  admit  my  first  propo- 
sition, show  the  higher  or  lower  law  in  mind,  which 
should  confine  any  part  of  it  over  its  normal  attrac- 
tion ;  or  3d,  Give  the  mind  law  which  proves  his 
position — that  all  variety  is,  '^per  se,  more  or  less 
adulterous.'*  I  say,  if  Mr.  B.  will  do  either,  or  all 
of  the  above,  I  will  meet  him  to  reply,  or  to  sur- 
render. Till  then,  I  respectfully  take  leave  of  him. 
It  is  high  time  the  friends  of  exclusive  marriage 
were  put  directly  upon  the  defence  of  their  own 
system.  Though  their  possession  has  been  long, 
it  has  never  been  entirely  "peaceable,"  but  under 


72  FREE   LOVE. 

repeated  protests.  In  every  past  age,  it  has  been 
more  or  less  "  in  law."  As  a  friend  of  Free  Love, 
we  summon  our  opponents  before  the  higher  court  of 
mental  philosophy. 

The  reader  will  bear  with  a  little  illustration  of  the 
general  tone  and  style  of  the  conservative  mind  in 
civilization  towards  the  rising  Free  Love.  It  comes 
in  my  '^Liberator,'*  and  is  so  short,  and  so  much  to 
the  point,  I  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  copy  it. 

"  LIBERTY  A  UNIVERSAL  CURSE." 

Hear  the  language  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer  : — 
"  Crime,  f^imine,  ignorance,  anarchy,  infidelity,  and 
revolution,  stare  the  reader  in  the  face  on  every  page 
of  universal  liberty.  A  single  season  of  want  in  Ire- 
land and  Scotland  will  exhibit  more  human  suffering 
than  a  Mrs.  Stowe  could  glean  from  the  annals  of 
slavery  through  all  time  and  through  all  countries. 
The  South  owes  it  to  herself  to  throw  free  society  on 
the  defensive.  Slave  society  is  co-extensive  with  man 
in  time  and  space.  It  must  be  natural,  or  man  must 
be  an  unnatural  being.  It  is  recognized  and  author- 
ized by  the  Bible,  and  was  ordained  of  God.  Free 
society  is  a  little  experiment,  a  departure  from  nature, 
that  claims  no  Divine  authority,  and  very  little  of 
human  authority. 

**  We  put  the  question  to  all  abolitionists :  What 
have  been  the  results  of  this  little  experiment  ?  It 
is  you  who  should  defend  yourselves  —  not  us. 
Human  experience,  and  practice,  and  divine  author- 
ity are  on  our  side.  You  must  make  out  a  strong 
case,  in  order  to  justify  the  injustice  of  such  author- 
ities.    Instead  of  southern  men  beinof  called  out  to 


MR.    BALLOU.  73 

lecture  in  defence  of  slavery,  northern  men  should 
be  invoked  to  defend  their  institutions." 

Re.'illy,  the  application  is  so  plain,  that  it  hardly 
needs  any  aid  from  us.  The  reader  can  only  sub- 
stitute/r^<?  love  in  the  place  of  "universal  liberty;** 
civilization  for  "south;'*  love  for  "society;**  the 
marriage  institution  for  "  slave  society  ;*'  free  loveites 
for  "abolitionists,**  etc.  Please  read  our  extract 
again  with  the  above  substitutions,  and  we  promise 
\t  will  make  a  perfect  fit  for  nearly  every  con- 
servative writer  against  Free  Love. 

But  we  are  among  the  impertinent  and  meddle- 
some "abolitionists'*  free  loveites  ;  and  deny  all 
exclusive  titles  to  sex.  We  have  returned,  in  our 
book,  the  demand  upon  civilization,  and  called  upon 
her  to  defend  herself  against  the  coming  light  and 
rights  of  Free  Love.  Her  age  is  admitted,  but  her 
character  for  peace  and  purity  has  not  been  the  best, 
and  she  must  and  will  make  room  for  a  larger  "  ex- 
periment** in  sexual  freedom. 
7 


74  FREE    LOVE. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

MR.     HKNRY     C.     WRIGHT A    REVIEW* "  WHAT     IS 

MARRIAGE?" 

I  SHALL  quote  very  little  of  Mr.  Wright's  reply  to 
the  above  question.  It  is  not  necessary.  I  repeat, 
my  book  is  not  designed  to  be  a  substitute  for  any 
which  has  preceded  it.  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
my  readers  have  read  these  several  books.  Those 
who  have  not,  will  not,  of  course,  find  my  reference 
to  them  of  as  much  interest.  Still,  they  will  not 
be  lost  to  such.  I  cannot  too  strongly  urge  my 
readers  to  read  these  books  on  Marriage,  if  they 
have  not.  None  can  afford  to  do  without  them. 
There  is  too  much  real  value  in  them  ;  and  of  that 
sort  which  is  generally  most  needed.  Mr.  Wright's 
book  was  written  to  elevate  love  and  marriage,  and 
«o  to  elevate  the  offspring  of  marriage.  It  was 
written  for,  and  suited  to,  diseased  and  undevel- 
oped humanity ;  and  nothing  is  more  needed. 
Comparatively,  it  was  nobly  executed.  Mr.  Wright 
does  seem  to  reach,  to  some  extent,  the  true 
features  of  connubial  love.  He  reaches  what  I  will 
call  the  first  germ,  or  the  childhood  of  marriage. 
This  is  much  in  advance  of  the  large  class  for  whom 
he  wrote  ;  and  perhaps  all  they  could  bear.     With 

*  See  part  II.  Letter  2,  of  his  book. 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  TS 

nearly  every  feature  of  his  love -marriage,  except  its 
exclusiveness,  I  can  harmoinze.  But  in  most  every 
line,  he  seems  to  suppose  this  exclusive  feature  to 
be  inseparable  from  the  very  nature  of  such  love. 
He  does  not  see  that  his  real  connubial  love  can  be 
enlarged  till  it  bursts  its  exclusive  shell,  and  so  be 
enhanced,  purified  and  ennobled.  He  says,  virtually, 
"Here  unto  have  we  come,'*  and  then  like  all  con- 
servatives in  the  past,  he  adds  his  "  no  farther  shalt 
thou  go.**  Yet  we  have  no  doubt  his  book  will  do 
more  to  spread  the  principles  of  free  love,  than  any 
other  book  written,  except  that  of  Dr.  Nichols  and 
wife.  Perhaps  we  ought  also  to  except  Mr.  Davis, 
though  the  latter  is  alike  exclusive  in  his  nominal 
marriage.  The  reader  will  understand,  that  these 
men  are  not  responsible  for  this  opinion  of  ours. 
They,  Mr.  Wright  and  Mr.  Davis,  have  certainly 
done  what  they  could  to  confine  marriage  to  pairs. 
But  they  elevate  love  and  free  it  from  law.  Their 
exceptional  doctrines  will  prove  weak.  We  know 
something  of  the  eflfect  of  such  free  and  elevating 
truths  as  those  books  contain. 

But,  "What  is  marriage  ?  "  Mr.  Wright's  " defi- 
nition of  wife,*'  is,  "the  incarnation  of  God  to  her 
husband.  The  great  Invisible  and  Intangible  made 
visible  and  tangible  in  the  deepest  and  most  intense 
and  potent  living  relation.  I  speak  calmly,  knowing 
the  full  import  of  the  words  I  use.     No  phrase  so 


76  FREE    LOVE. 

fully  expresses  what  thou  art  to  me  as  this  :  Th© 
incarnation  of  God." 

The  reader  should  know  that  Mr.  Wright  con- 
veys his  sentiments  in  a  series  of  letters,  representing 
a  male  and  a  female  —  a  man  and  his  wife  —  com* 
municatinof  each  to  the  other  his  and  her  views  and 
feelings  as  to  the  marriage  relation. 

The  language  of  the  above  quotation  is  very 
strong,  but  I  have  no  controversy  with  what  I 
believe  to  be  its  meaning. 

"  Worship  is  a  necessity  of  my  being.  I  must 
worship  sometlvng;  so  must  every  man  and  every 
woman.  My  soul  cannot  stoop  to  worship  times 
and  places,  stations  and  titles.  I  see  no  God  in 
them.  They  are  all  the  works  of  men's  hands.  But 
I  worship  thee,  without  one  shrinking  doubt  as  to 
my  right  to  do  so,  or  as  to  whether  God  will  accept 
this  devotion  to  the  embodiment  of  my  highest  con- 
ception of  his  attributes,  as  being  paid  to  him.** 

All  this  is  very  strong ;  but  I  only  object  to  it 
from  its  exclusive  concentration  of  worship  upon 
one.  Let  such  a  soul  enlarge  till  it  knows  and 
enjoys  a  more  expansive  w^orship.  I  should  not 
have  supposed  so  large  a  soul  as  Mr.  Wright's  could 
have  penned  so  narrow  and  confined  a  sphere  of 
worship.  However,  it  is  only  carrying  the  worship 
which  nearly  all  christians  have  concentrated  upon 
the  head  of  Jesus,  into  exclusive  and  dual  marriagfe, 

"  In  thee,  God  is  manifest  in  the  flesh.'*     Brother 


i 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  77 

Wright,  we  worship  many  Christs  and  many  wo- 
men ; — ^all  Saviours  and  all  women  ;  and  we  do  not 
dispute  that  all  real  women  are  Saviours,  and  are 
Gods  **  manifest  in  the  flesh/'  So  are  real  men. 
Then  do  not  confine  an  enlarged  soul — one  that  has 
outgrown  the  shackels  of  sectarianism  and  exclu- 
fiiveness,  to  worship  one  individual  object,  and  upon 
one  individual  altar,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 
But  we  are  thankful  for  even  this  progress  from  the 
past.  Man,  in  a  low  and  undeveloped  state,  has  al- 
ways held  low  views  of  woman,  and  of  the  objects 
of  her  creation,  as  made  for  the  gr^ification  of  his 
lower  nature.  The  change  is  refreshing.  Man  has 
held  woman  below  himself.  Even  the  wise  Paul — 
wise  for  his  day, — tells  us  **  the  woman  was  made 
for  the  man,  not  the  man  for  the  woman.'*  Nothing 
can  be  more  false  to  nature  than  the  last  clause, 
which  we  have  emphasized.  We  almost  wonder 
that  such  a  mind  could  not  sooner  break  from  such 
debasing  traditions.  But  such  views  are  passing 
away.  Woman  is  becoming  man's  equal — verily 
his  object  of  worship.  If  the  conservative  reader  is 
offended  with  my  friend  and  myself  on  this,  can  he 
not  pardon  something  for  the  ultra  effects  of  reac- 
tion. The  man  has  always  been  worshiped  more 
or  less  by  the  woman,  and  he  has  loved  to  have 
it  so.  I  differ  from  Mr.  Wright  in  that.  I  would 
not  worship  one  woman  in  exclusion  from  all  others. 
And  I  confess  to  finding  it  agreeable  to  receive 
7* 


78  ?  FREK   LOVB. 

worship  from  more  than  one.  Nor  do  I  desire 
to  receive  this  worship  from  even  the  one,  in  ex- 
clusion from  all  other  men.  The  expansion  of 
heart  and  mind,  which  would  lead  the  woman  of 
my  preference  to  love  and  worship  other  men, 
equally  deserving  with  myself,  with  the  same  kind 
of  love  and  worship,  only  endears  her  to  me.  I'or 
they,  too,  are  a  part  of  me,  they  are  my  brethren, 
and  "  all  flesh  is  one  flesh.''  My  benevolence  and 
adhesiveness  are  the  greater,  and  the  higher,  and  so 
control  and  baptise  in  their  fount  my  entire  con- 
nubial love.  I  do  not  allow  even  here  the  higher 
sentiments  to  be  absorbed  in,  and  controlled  by,  the 
lowest  of  the  lower.  Mr.  Wright,  deepen  and  en- 
large the  spirit  of  your  theology  in  human  brother- 
hood. To  me,  this  exclusive  spirit  and  worship  is 
insipid  and  childish.  In  connubial  manhood,  truth, 
even  in  a  mate,  is  both  desirable  and  lovely  ;  and 
truth  is  just.  Justice  can  never  be  absolutely  ex- 
clusive. 

More  from  Mr.  Wright- **  A  masculine  soul 

and  a  feminine  soul  in  marriage,  are  absorbed  each 
into  the  other.  The  essence  of  each  enters  into  the 
other  ;  permeates,  fills  and  thrills  it,  leaving  to  nei- 
ther a  separate  existence.  Thought  responds  to 
thought,  will  to  will,  heart  to  heart.  *  *  *  * 
The  entrance  of  two  souls,  each  into  the  other,  thus 
making  of  two  one  perfect  being — this  is  marriage, 
as  my  heart  defines  it.     *     *     *     *     I  cannot  feel 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  7^ 

that  I  have  an  existence  apart  from  thee.  Without 
thee  I  can  do  nothing.  I  am  nothing.  In  thee  I 
lire,  move,  and  have  my  being.  To  dwell  in  thee  in 
to  dwell  in  love,  in  God.  I  have  no  hopes,  no  long- 
ings, no  aspirations,  no  life,  apart  from  thee.*' 

Really,  a  woman  is  the  whole  saviour  of  mr 
friend's  theology  for  a  man  — and  a  man  is  the 
whole  saviour  for  a  woman.  More  : — She  is  thi* 
whole  of  society,  to  her  husband,  which  he  can 
possibly  desire  or  receive.  Each  is  entirely  *'  ab- 
sorbed '*  by  the  other.  But  we  think  we  under- 
stand Mr.  Wright,  through  these  long  expression* 
of  love,  and  we  do  not  like  to  clip  his  wings  of 
connubial  affection.  We  are  entirely  in  love  with 
the  real  substance  of  the  union  here  described.  We 
only  wish  to  enlarge  it.  We  would  not  care  if  — 
oh  how  glorious  it  would  be — if,  in  the  progress  of 
the  race,  the  time  should  come,  when  all  men  feel  to 
all  women,  and  all  women  feel  to  all  men,  like  this. 
This  would  be  heaven,  verily.  Methinks  I  should 
like  to  live  in  such  a  day.  No,  I  am  not  yet  pure 
and  expanded  in  soul  enough  for  that.  But,  surely, 
love  would  then  "  work  no  evil  to  his  neighbor,''  or 
to  his  neighbor's  wife.  I  promised  not  to  quot«? 
much  from  this  chapter,  as  it  was  not  directly  con- 
nected with  our  difference.  But  its  real  meaning 
was  too  rich.  I  could  not  pass  it.  Yet  I  tell  th« 
reader  the  book  is  full  of  more  like  it,  and  as  good. 
I  rejoice  to  know  that  when  men  attain  to  such 


CO  FREE    LOVE 

views  as  this  book  contains,  they  will  not  stop  here. 
When  man  has  really  advanced  to  such  love  as  this 
for  the  one,  he  will  go  on  till  he  reaches  it  to  the 
many  ;  and  the  harmony  and  consequent  happiness 
will  be  just  so  much  greater.  Then,  "every  old  man 
I  meet  will  be  my  father,  —  every  old  woman,  my 
mother ;  every  young  man  I  meet  will  be  my  bro- 
ther, and  every  young  woman  will  be  my  sister  —  if 
need  be,  my  wife.  All  children  will  love  me,  and  I 
will  love  and  embrace  them.  They  will  be  mine." 
How  glorious  that  day  !  A  day  so  long  prayed  for 
by  all  the  pious  of  earth.  In  this  heaven,  there 
will  be  no  exclusive  marriage,  or  giving  in  mar- 
riiige.  But  we  shall  all  be  as  the  real  and  higher 
angels.  We  say,  let  that  day  come  !  let  it  come ! 
though  it  should  over  turn  and  over  turn,  — purify 
and  sanctify, — sift  and  burn,  in  a  preceding  judg- 
ment, and  bury  in  one  common  grave  of  the  past, 
all  sectarinism  and  all  exclusive  marriage,  and  land 
our  race  in  one  ocean  of  love  and  union !  Let  all 
jealously  and  hate  go  to  its  own  place !  All  this 
will  do  no  harm,  but  untold  good.  We  confess  to 
some  little  dread — (for  others,  not  for  ourselves, 
we  think  we  have  Hved  passed  it) — of  the  coming 
storm  on  this  subject,  when,  and  as  we  know  our 
prayers,  and  the  prayer  of  Mr.  Wright,  for  the 
spirit  of  his  prayer  is  like  ours,  it  will  be  answered. 
We  do  not  dread,  but  glory  in  the  moral  calm  which 
will  succeed  it.     Then  will  the  *•  will  of  God  be 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  t% 

done  upon  earth,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven/*  We  shall 
be  as  the  angels.  We  have  no  doubt  but  exclusive 
marriage  prevails  to  some  extent,  in  the  lower 
spheres.  But  we  do  not  call  these  angels  of  heaven. 
"  The  husband  is  the  ideal  actualized.  No  other 
man  is  like  him,  or  ever  can  be.  He  is  stronger, 
nobler,  truer,  more  tender,  more  perfectly  adapted  to 
the  wife's  delicate  intuitions  than  any  or  all  other 
men.'*  **  Nobler,  truer.'*  Should  marriage  make  a 
fool  of  a  woman  ?  Shall  she  believe  what  may  be 
a  falsehood  ?  This  is  contending  for  perpetuity  of 
a  disease,  which  is  now  altogether  too  prevalent. 
But  if  every  word  of  Mr.  Wright's  statement  was 
true,  it  does  not  prove  his  entire  exclusive  feature  in 
marriage.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  absolute 
trutli  of  most  of  it.  This  entire  monopoly  of  sex- 
ual love  over  all  other  loves,  is  untruthful  and 
sickly.  Mr.  Wright,  in  his  book,  truthfully  defines 
connubial  love  to  be  sexual  love,  and  yet  he  every 
where  seems  to  give  this  lower  faculty  power  to 
monopolize  and  control  all  above  it.  He  exalts  it 
at  the  expense  of  all  above  it.  In  a  truthful  bar- 
mony,  it  should  be  below  other  loves,  and  never  act 
at  the  expense  of  any.  Instead  of  harmonizing  this 
with  other  loves  in  the  bi^ain,  each  in  their  true  or- 
der, he  attempts,  virtually,  in  all  his  writings  on  the 
subject,  to  concentrate  all  other  loves  in  this.  To  us 
this  is  abnormal,  and  we  never  call  such  a  state  of 
mind  healthy,  or  the  true  connubial  love.     It  is  but 


82  PRKK   LOVE. 

fractionally  so.  Mr.  Wright,  in  this  way,  lowers 
manhood  and  womanhood.  Still,  as  he  marries  th« 
faculties  of  the  mind,  though  it  bo  unnatural  mar- 
riage, placing  the  lower  above  the  higher,  it  is  much 
better,  and  in  advance  of  the  past. 

We  nearly  harmonize  with  Mr.  Wright  in  th« 
**  perpetuity  of  love,*'  except  that  we  go  further, 
and  would  not,  in  any  way,  hint  that  it  was  possible 
for  death  to  make  any  change  with  it.  Perhaps  we 
do  not  differ  much  with  him  in  his  exception, — that 
an  unequal  development  after  marriage  might  end, 
at  least,  in  a  (partial)  divorce.  We  believe  this 
often  comes,  in  marriage  entered  into  on  some  of  the 
lower  planes.  Mr.  Davis  believes  in  nature's  divorce, 
as  well  as  in  nature's  marriage.  Mr.  Wright  rep» 
resents  the  husband  as  saying  to  his  mate,  "  Thou 
eans't  not  continue  to  love  me  if  I  become  unlov- 
able." This  is  good  philosophy.  No  more  can  a 
normal  mind  help  loving  all  which  is  to  it  lovable. 


We  come  now  to  the  direct  issue  between  us  and 
Mr.  Wright.    In  the  question  which  he  puts  : — 

**IS    EXCLUSIVENKSS   A  FIXED    LaW    OF    MaRRIAGE  ? " 

We  have  said  no  —  Mr.  W.  says  yes.     (  See  Letter 
lY.  page  125.) 

"VARIETY   IN   LOVE,    OR    POLIGAMY," 

**ISrina,'*  (the  name  of  Mr.  W.'s  ideal  lady  re* 
spondent,)  "it  is  settled  between  us  that  our  onenese 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  69 

will  be  eternal,  if  our  present  desires  and  vrants  are 
truly  answered  ;  also,  that  the  perpetuity  of  our 
oneness  depends  on  our  knowledge  of  and  fidelity 
to  the  natural  laws  by  which  marriage  is  desio-ned  to 
be  regulated.  The  question  arises — "  Is  exclusive- 
ness  a  fixed  law  of  mind  ?  I  ask  not  should  either 
marry  after  the  death  of  the  other.''  This  loosnesa 
in  relation  to  a  surviving  partner,  after  the  death  of 
his  or  her  mate,  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  his 
whole  defence  of  exclusive  marriage.  By  his  phil- 
osophy, any  such  marriage  could  be  nothing  but 
adultery.  It  is  not  necessarily  a  crime  to  die  before 
one's  mate — and  so  love,  which  we  both  contend  is 
naturally  eternal,  cannot  be  sundered  by  death. 
But  to  numberless  inconsistencies  is  every  man 
driven,  who  engages  in  the  defence  of  error. 

*^But  can  woman  be  the  wife  of  more  than  one 
man  ?  and  can  the  relation  of  husband  be  truly  sus- 
tained to  more  than  one  woman,  at  the  same  time  ? 
To  this  my  heart  and  my  head  give  a  negative  an- 
svrer.  Keason  and  affection  assure  me  that  polygamy 
is  unnatural,  and  therefore  wrong." 

We  shall  make  no  entire  defence  of  polygamy. 
On  the  whole,  it  is  more  unnatural  than  exclusive 
dual  marriage.  It  is  all  one  sided  and  unjust.  Ex- 
clusive dual  marriage  aims  to  monopolize  the  entire 
heart  of  one.  Polygamy  does  the  same  by  more  than 
one — perhaps  many.  Of  course  I  cannot  approve 
of    the   exclusive    and    monopolizing  phase   of  it. 


84  FREE    LOVB 

When  there  are  more  females  than  males,  so  fur  ae 
provision  for  these  is  concerned,  it  is  better  than 
our  present  civilization.  But  mixing  up  polygamy 
with  "a  variety  in  love,"  as  Mr.  W.  has  done,  is  very 
illogical  and  improper.  It  does  not  belong  with  the 
latter.  We  believe  Mr.  Wright  knows  this,  but  w« 
leave  it  with  the  reader  to  judge  of  the  motives 
which  prompted  to  this  course. 

*'What  says  the  heart?  Is  there  a  husband 
whose  love  is  concentrated  on  one  woman  as  a  wife, 
who  can  willingly  allow  another  man  to  be  to  his 
wife  w^hat  he  is  ?  He  loves  her  —  her  alone  —  above 
all  others,  and  he  earnestly  desires  that  she  should 
return  his  aflPection.'* 

Really,  if  he  concentrates  his  love  on  her  alone,  at 
her  call,  it  is  but  just  that  she  should  do  the  same 
by  him.  If  he  simply  loves  her  above  all  others,  it 
is  just  that  she  should  do  the  same  by  him.  We 
gay,  let  the  friends  of  exclusive  marriage  be  just, 
w^iile  they  choose,  and  are  in  that  order.  When 
they  can  endure  it  no  longer,  let  them  relax  their 
demand  first.  **Be  just  if  the  heavens  fall,"  and 
then  they  will  not  fall. 

**  The  very  fact  that  another  can  claim  her  interest 
or  win  her  affections,  enough  to  make  marriage 
attractive,  strikes  a  death-blow  to  a  true  lover's 
peace.  It  is  equally  true  of  w^oman.  Hence  the 
origin  of  that  expression  of  feeling  commonly  called 
jealousy." 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  86 

Mr.  W.  here  seems  again  to  mix  up  polygamy 
with  the  doctrine  of  a  "variety/'  We  have  (lis* 
missed  his  polygamy. 

If  Mr.  W.  means,  in  the  above,  to  teach,  that  the 
exclusive  feeling  is  hurt  by  a  lack  of  exclusive  feel- 
ing in  a  mate,  we  admit  it.  But  we  still  deny  that 
such  an  exclusive  feeling  is  *'true  love'*  in  its 
fulness.  It  is  fractional  and  abnormal;  and  its 
action  causes  the  "jealousies'*  to  which  Mr.  VV.  is 
disposed  to  be  merciful.  He  should  be.  But  a 
normal  action  of  Free  Love  never  produces  these 
jealousies  in  normal  and  healthy  minds.  The 
reader  will  permit  me  here  to  record  a  somewhat 
singular,  and  yet  not  very  uncommon  anomaly.  Mr, 
Wriofht  has  lono*  been  accustomed  to  find  himself  in 
a  very  lean  minority  on  nearly  every  subject  which 
he  introduces.  I  speak  it  to  his  credit.  He  has 
seldom  found  men's  feelings  and  instincts  with  his 
own,  and  with  what  he  considered  to  be  the  truth. 
This  has  been  true  in  his  position  on  war  and  its 
opposite — non-resistance,  slavery,  woman's  rights, 
and  woman's  sphere,  sectarianism,  etc.  Here,  on 
exclusive  marriage,  in  which  the  race  are  as  corrupt 
as  on  any  other  subject,  his  first  and  last,  and  his 
only  arguments  are  no  arguments,  but  appeals  to 
the  feelings  and  instincts,  and  even  'jealousies'  of 
men  in  general.  Such  appeals  are  not  better  here 
than  elsewhere.  We  should  go  back  of  "misdi- 
rected" feeling  to  the  laws  of  mind,  to  right  up  an 
8 


86  FREE    LOVE. 

already  careening  ship.  Is  this  all  that  Mr.  W.  can 
produce  in  defense  of  his  dual  marriages  ?  Is  it 
his  best  kind  of  proof?  We  were  not  required  to 
do  more  than  by  our  counter  testimony  pronounce 
it  untrue,  and  pass  it.  We  have  and  mean  to  follow 
him,  and  reply  to  such  as  we  find.  On  every  other 
subject,  he  pronounces  men  selfish  and  perverted. 
Here  he  is  disposed  to  tread  with  care  over  the  com- 
plainings of  an  unnatural  demand,  or  to  allow  and 
defend  its  morbid  claim. 

"Ifwe  are  true  to  ourselves  and  to  each  other, 
neither  can  outgrow  the  other.  I  can  never  seek  an 
enlargement  of  soul  that  cannot  be  shared  by  thee. 
The  fixed  object  of  our  lives  must  be  to  perfect  the 
harmony  between  us.'* 

All  good,  except  a  little  savoring  of  law.  But 
this  is  good  instruction  for  those  for  whom  he  wrote. 
The  well  developed  and  healthy  will  do  right  spon- 
taneously, from  the  right  in  them.  With  these,  love 
and  harmony  will  always  take  care  of  themselves. 
True  love  will  live  by  its  own  inherent  nature. 

"  In  every  step  of  my  course,  the  wife  of  my  soul 
must  stand  by  my  side.  I  can  desire  no  honor,  no 
station,  no  heaven  apart  from  thee.  If  thou  art 
delayed  I  must  be  delayed  with  thee.  We  are  one 
in  love,  in  will,  in  purpose,  in  destiny.  Be  it  ours  to 
eternize  this  oneness.  We  will  stand,  go  back,  or 
forvard,  together.*' 

Mr.  Wright,  probably,  does  not  mean  to  "  stand  " 


MR.    IIENRT    C.    WRIGHT.  0f* 

from  progression,  or  to  go  back  into  evils.  What  a 
glorious  time  it  will  be  when  the  race — every  man 
and  every  woman  —  shall  be  deluged  in  such  a  spirit 
of  love  and  oneness,  each  to  the  other,  and  all  to 
all ;  when  every  man  shall  love  his  neighbor  as 
himself,  and  his  neighbor's  wife  as  his  own  wife. 

**  With  this  fulness  of  satisfaction  in  thee,  how 
can  I  desire  another  as  a  wife  ?  There  is  no  room 
for  another  in  my  nature  ;  it  finds  in  thee  all  I  can 
receive  from  any  woman  in  marriage,  and  it  repels 
the  thought  of  any  other  in  this  relation.  The  ex- 
istence of  the  desire  for  a  second  person  in  the 
marriage  union,  while  the  first  one  lives,  proves  that 
the  first  relation  has  ceased,  if  it  ever  existed.  It 
seems  to  me  that  marriage-love  is,  in  its  very 
essence,  exclusive." 

"While  the  first  one  lives.'*  This  looseness  is 
unpardonable.  It  destroys  all  force  in  much  of  his 
previous  argument.  He  has  said  that  **  true  love  " 
was  in  its  nature  "eternal,"  as  well  as  monogamic  ; 
that  death  would  not  weaken  it.  He  and  we  believe 
that  none  of  us  will  ever  die  in  any  sense  which 
affects  love.  Then  why  does  he  repeat  such  lan- 
fiTia^e  as  the  above.  If  Mr.  W.  has  his  true  mate, 
and  by  some  accident  he  falls  first,  will  he  feel  it 
any  more  right  for  her  to  be  joined  to  "  another  as 
a  husband  ?  "  Will  it  appear  any  more  "  pure  and 
chaste"  to  him  ?  It  is  impossible  for  her  to  love 
the  last,  or  cease  to  love  Mr.  W.      He  is  no  less 


88  FREE    LOVE. 

"loveable,**  and  has  committed  no  offense.  Mr. 
Wright,  give  up  the  defense  of  exclusive  monogamio 
relation,  or  come  up  to  the  courage  to  be  more 
consistent,  and  manfully  stand  your  ground. 

When  I  adopt  Mr.  Wright's  views,  I  tell  the 
reader,  I  will  carry  them  out  consistently.  I  will 
never  wink  at  adulteries  with  a  second  mate,  after 
the  departure  of  the  true  and  eternal  mate. 

I  think  Mr.  Wright  must  have  intended  the  first 
part  of  our  last  quotation  as  an  argument.  The  last 
sentence  but  one  is  a  mere  statement  of  his  opinion. 
His  closing  inference  has  no  relation  to  the  argument. 
His  implied  argument  is  a  "fullness  of  satisfaction" 
in  the  one  ;  **no  room  for  another.'*  We  quote  him, 
farther : 

'*  Men  and  women  have  a  nature  that  can  be  shared 
by  every  other  man  and  woman  in  the  ties  of  friend- 
ship, in  perfect  accordance  with  the  law  that  binds 
men  and  women  together,  as  such.  But  in  marriage, 
this  general  tendency  of  each  to  the  opposite  sex, 
concentrates  itself  in  one,  and  therefore  excludes  all 
others  from  the  privileges  and  endearments  of  mar- 
riage. The  glory  of  marriage  is  its  exclusiveness 
The  soul,  conscious  of  refinement,  purity  and  dig- 
nity, will  shrink  from  sharing  the  relation  with  moro^ 
than  one.'* 

Mr.  Wright  here  frees  every  part  of  the  mind, 
except  the  connubial — which  is  a  part  of  the  sexual. 
And  yet,  with  all  the  importance  which  he  attaches 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  89 

to  tliis  subject,  he  is  perfectly  indefinite.  In  a 
general  manner,  he  states  a  distinction,  but  in  no 
way  does  he  ever  define  the  line  of  demarkation.  No 
other  faculty  should  be  concentrated.  Connubial  love 
should  always  be  on  one,  ''  therefore  it  excludes  all 
others."  It  is  impossible  for  Mr.  Wright  to  define  this 
unreal,  untrue,  and  indefinable  distinction.  But  the 
argument  continues  the  same,  a  ** fulness,'*  or  "no 
room'*  for  more.  Eeally,  we  do  not  see  the  special 
**  glory  **  in  exclusiveness  for  such  a  reason.  If  this 
is  not  intended  to  be  the  argument,  then  there  is 
none  ;  it  is  all  mere  testimony — mere  opinion.  He 
always  assumes  the  superior  "refinement,  purity, 
and  dignity  *'  of  this  exclusiveness.  We  will  accept 
of  this  when  he  has  proved  that  it  is  in  harmony 
with  the  laws  of  mind.  Its  purity  will  then  be 
self-evident. 

But  let  us  attend  to  the  argument; — "no  room 
for  another.**  When  any  thing  is  full  it  can  contain 
no  more.  In  the  same  sense  in  which  one  object 
fills  any  thing,  it  cannot  hold  more.  This  is  not 
bad  philosophy.  We  believe  in  a  law  of  mind,  with 
more  or  less  power  to  control  the  action  of  mind ; 
that  is,  in  a  degree  of  what  we  shall  call  "  free 
agency.*'  That  a  man  has  some  power  to  "keep  *' 
or  give  "  the  doors  of  his  heart  to  her  that  lieth  in 
his  bosom.'*  We  have  said  the  man  could  not  be  in 
a  normal  state,  absolutely  exclusive  in  his  affections 
on  any  thing  ;  and  that  if  he  could,  it  would  be  false. 
8* 


90  PRBE   LOVE. 

That  if  a  man  was  in  love  with  one  woman,  he  would 
love  another  woman  who  was  like  her,  or  so  far  ae 
she  was  like  the  first.  But  we  also  said,  a  well 
developed  mind  had  more  or  less  power  to  control 
the  action  of  his  love  or  life,  in  confining,  concen- 
trating or  diflfusing.  We  know  of  no  man  who 
carries  his  belief,  in  this  power,  farther  than  we. 
This,  the  reader  must  have  observed  in  our  main 
argument,  as  we  there  stated  it  plainly.  Perhaps 
Mr.  Wright  denies  the  natural  power  in  mind  to 
control,  one  way  or  the  other,  the  concentrations  of 
love.  We  some  thhik  he  does.  If  so,  in  this  he  ie 
again  inconsistent  with  himself,  as  he  fully  teaches 
free  agency,  in  its  preservation  or  destruction.  In 
our  last  extract  from  him,  and  in  all  of  them,  h« 
represents  his  male  lover  as  having  concentrated  th« 
entire  life,  action  or  flow  of  his  connubial  love  on 
one  woman,  and  of  having  exclusively  monopolized 
her  entire  connubial  soul.  So  he  has  a  *'  fulness  of 
satisfaction  in''  her.  So  there  is  "no  room  for 
another.**  So  he  is  spending  all  he  has.  and  receiv- 
ing all  he  can  contain.  Should  we  admit  this  stat« 
entirely  possible — admit  the  fact  and  the  philosophy 
' —  there  is  no  shadow  of  proof  here  that  this  is  the 
most  healthy,  normal,  refined,  purified  and  elevated 
state  of  connubial  love. 

Mr.  Wright's  book  is  a  real  emanation  from  his 
own  soul.  We  believe  him  honest  in  his  testimony, 
«id  do  not  dispute  its  correctness,  only  as  we  deny 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  91 

\he  entire  distinction  which  he  makes  between  that 
sexual  love  which  he  allows  between  all  men  and  all 
women,  and  that  which  he  confines  to  the  one. 
Sexual  love  is  one.  It  has,  like  other  loves,  a  variety 
of  manifestations,  but  all  are  governed  by  the  same 
law.  In  its  higher  manifestations,  Mr.  W.  but  par- 
tially confines  it,  but  partially  concentrates  it.  In  its 
lower  action,  he  entirely  confines  and  concentrates  it 
This,  reader,  is  all  there  is  to  his  unde finable  distinction. 
Adhesiveness  may  be  concentrated.  It  was  so 
between  "David  and  Jonathan."  Their  lov« 
"passed  the  love  of  woman,"  in  general.  The  wri- 
ter has  know^n  this  concentration  upon  two  of  his 
own  sex.  An  inequality  of  subsequent  development 
has  given  us  a  natural  divorce.  We  think,  in  an 
improved  state  of  society,  there  will  be  more  adhe- 
sive love,  but  less  exclusive  concentration.  There 
is  no  mystery  about  connubial  love.  It  is  s'mply 
the  development  of  sex  to  manhood  and  womanhood 
in  a  true  harmony  with  all  of  the  loves  above  it.  So  it 
must  be  of  tremendous  power,  whether  in  concen- 
tration, or  a  partial  diffusion.  If  adhesiveness 
between  the  same  sex  can  be,  sometimes,  stronger 
than  death,  what  must  be  the  power  of  love,  when 
another  faculty,  another  strand  of  great  strength  is 
added  to  the  cord,  as  it  is  between  those  of  opposite 
«exes.  Added  to  this,  the  entire  power  of  the  tre- 
menduous  and  despotic  institution  of  civilized  mar- 
riage, goes  to  concentrate  and  dualize  the  lore  between 


92  FREE   LOVE. 

the  sexes.  In  civilization,  all  are  shut  up  to  this 
exclusive  dualism  under  pain  of  entire  sexual  star- 
vation, or  loss  of  caste  and  character.  Law  is 
perpetually  invoked  to  protect  and  enforce  it.  If 
any  of  the  fair  sex,  who  are  not  allowed  to  institute 
means  to  provide  even  for  their  own  acknowledged 
rights  in  her  exclusive  law  marriages  —  and  so  fail 
to  obtain  them  —  are  at  last  impelled,  from  whatever 
motives,  to  seek  and  partially  obtain  those  rights  out 
of  her  order  and  her  law,  they  are  pursued  by  a 
spirit  of  persecution  which  has  more  than  the  cru- 
elties of  direct  murder  in  it.  It  lingeringly  torments 
without  freeing  its  victim.  Though  these  sometimes 
soon  find  freedom  in  death.  But  we  tell  the  friends 
of  exclusive  marriage,  the  day  of  her  damning  in- 
justice and  cruelty  is  passing  away.  Mr.  Wright 
is  not  responsible  for  all  this.  He  is  in  part, 
as  the  reader  will  see  by  our  further  quota- 
tions. He  slanderously  condemns  all  love  out  of 
exclusive  dual  order,  but  does  not  hold  any  to  the 
forms  of  outward  law.  The  day  is  not  far  distant 
when  the  race  will  look  back  upon  our  law,  in  the 
place  of  love,  to  marry  and  to  keep  together  married 
pairs,  with  as  much  wonder  and  contempt,  as  we 
now  look  upon  the  past  hanging  of  witches.  The 
requirement  of  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  woman 
will  then  appear  alike  ridiculous  and  inhuman.  They 
will  exclaim,  "  What !  keep  men  and  women  in  love,  in 
married  relations,  by  law  ?  *'  They  will  read  that  this 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  93 

was  then  (now)  thought  necessary  for  the  protection 
and  safety  of  society  1  They  will  in  their  imperti- 
nence, ask  how  could  society  be  in  fear  of  love  ? 
History  will  explain  it  all. 

Before  proceeding  to  further  quotations,  the  reader 
will  bear  with  a  further  illustration  of  our  last. 

A  man  enters  an  orchard  of  delicious  fruit.  Some 
particular  tree  attracts  his  attention  above  all  others. 
He  enters  beneath  its  boughs,  and  supplies  his  ali- 
mentiveness  to  a  surfeit,  and  from  time  to  time 
continues  to  do  so.  He  continues  to  feel  a  **  ful- 
ness," and  has  "no  room*-*  for  more.  He  casts  a 
general  and  even  appreciative  look  at  other  trees, 
but  he  desires  none  of  their  fruit.  In  this  state,  his 
stomach  "repels''  the  thought  of  eating  from  them. 
Very  likely  !  But  does  this  prove  that  he  has  a  taste 
—  a  lore  for  the  fruit  of  that  tree  only  ?  And  who 
will  assert  that  he  acts  wiser,  and  more  in  harmony 
with  even  his  nature,  or  health  of  his  stomach,  than 
the  man  who,  though  he  may  have  some  preference 
for  some  tree  or  trees  of  the  orchard,  more  than  for 
all,  still,  to  some  extent,  supplies  his  equally  normal 
appetite  from  several  ? 

"Much  is  said  about  a  variety  in  love.  It  is  said 
that  the  passional  nature  of  man  needs  a  fuller  satis- 
faction than  a  single  object  can  afford ;  that  some 
men  must  suffer  unless  they  live  with  more  than 
one  woman  as  a  wife.  But  the  history  of  polygamy > 
under  whatever  name,  and  by  whatever  and  by  whom- 


"94  FREE   LOVB. 

•soever  sanctioned,  demonstrates  that  it  is  unnatural, 
'isince  its  consequences  are  evil,  and  only  evil.  It 
Tenders  men  imbecile,  in  body  and  soul,  and  tendi 
to  a  disproportion  of  the  sexes.  Woman  can  never 
attain  nor  keep  her  true  position  in  a  state  of  polyg- 
amy. The  only  marriage  which  commends  itself  to 
'the  instinct,  the  reason  and  the  heart  is  exclusive, 
and  therefore,  this  alone  will  elevate  and  purify  mam 
.and  woman.'* 

It  is  plain  to  us  that  Mr.  Wright  intends  still  te 
-confound  Free  Love  with  Polygamy.  This  is  gross 
•glander  of  the  former.  Mr.  Wright's  marriage  lies 
between  Free  Love  and  polygamy.  Free  Love  frees 
;all  women.  Polygamy  is  exclusive  marriage  extend- 
ed from  one  to  many.  We  are  sure  that  Mr.  Wright 
must  see  this.  We  write  more  for  the  benefit  of 
woman  than  for  man,  as  we  believe  woman  suffers 
more  than  man,  whether  she  be  bound  to  the  man  in 
^units,  or  by  tens  or  by  hundreds,  as  in  the  case  of 
'David  and  Solomon,  and  others.  Polygamy  is  not 
better  than  dual  marriage,  but  worse,  only  wher« 
there  is  a  redundance  of  females.  So  far  "its  conse- 
quences" are  not  entirely  evil. 

We  have  no  particular  sympathy  for  the  plea  for  a 
"variety,"  in  our  last  quotation.  At  the  best  it  is 
«n  unjust  remedy  for  diseased  and  undeveloped  mind. 
"Such  is  not  the  argument  of  Free  Love.  But  as 
4}ad  as  we  think  this  argument,  we  do  not  see  how 
^civilized  marriages  can,  with  sober  face,  oppose  it. 


MR.    HENRY    C.    WRIGHT.  9f 

Let  us  look  at  their  system  as  it  stands  in  opposition 
to  it.  It  may  not  be  unprofitable.  What  then  is  the 
fact  as  to  present  society  ?  In  the  marriage  bed, 
there  are  not  less  than  thirty  thousand  females  sa- 
crificed annually  in  the  United  States,  upon  the  altar 
of  Inst,  or  intemperate  amativeness.  (No  enlight- 
ened physician  will  dispute  the  entire  truthfulness 
of  this  statement.  If  any  should,  we  covet  the 
privilege  of  discussing  it  with  him,  in  any  place 
which  can  be  opened  to  us.)  Added  to  the  above, 
are  a  large  class  in  our  cities  who  go  in  the  same 
way — if  possible  worse,  out  of  law — in  spite  of  law- 
While  this  is  being  enacted  on  one  side,  on  the  other 
side,  there  are  an  equal  number  of  both  sexes,  dying 
annually  of  sexual  starvation,  from  necessary  ama- 
tive fasting,  and  from  the  "  solitary  vice  "  which 
eometimes  follows  such  a  life  of  entire  and  unnatural 
abstinence.  Many  dare  not  take  the  step  in  mar- 
•riage,  knowing  there  is  no  reprieve  —  no  mercy,  if 
it  should  prove  unfortunate,  short  of  death,  or 
adultery — so  called — and  consequent  loss  of  charac- 
ter. Such,  at  least,  often  delay  long,  and  so  there 
are  many  in  single  fractional  life,  when  they  most 
need  their  just  rights  in  love.  In  this  we  refer  more 
to  females.  Males  are  vastly  more  addictc'd  lo 
"solitary  vice."  A  physician  who  has  just  pub- 
lished a  book  on  the  "  Physiology  of  Marriage," 
testifies  that  this  vice  ia  on  the  increase,  and  that  it 
Is  worse  for  the  race  than  "  fornification." 


96  FREE    LOVE. 

Civilization  has  never  yet  dreamed  —  aloud,  at 
least — of  any  thing  like  a  successful  remedy  for  all, 
or  for  any  of  these  evils,  and  yet  she  is  in  convul- 
sions of  fear,  if  any  man  proposes  a  radical  change, 
lest  she  should  be  plunged  into  something  worse. 
Our  friend  Ballou  is  always  in  this  state  of  mind. 
So  is  Mr.  Greeley.  We  do  not  wonder  at  this.  We 
sympathise  with  them  to  some  extent.  We  have 
not  referred  to  the  real  character  of  civilization,  to 
reproach  her,  for  she  is  our  mother.  But  we  insist, 
if  she  truly  sees  her  disease,  and  knows  of  no 
available  remedy,  she  should  be  more  lenient  with 
her  children,  who  may  think  they  have  found,  and 
are  determined  to  apply  one.  Still  her  very  disease 
creates  her  fear,  but  we  cannot  consult  it.  We  have 
sounded  the  thing  till  we  are  sure  there  is  no  saviour 
in  civilization  for  civilization.  She  has  tried  law 
and  bonds.  We  leave  her  to  try  it  still.  We  shall 
try  gospel  and  freedom. 

We  respect  the  motives  of  some  who  oppose  Free 
Love.  Still  a  very  large  class  of  those  who  make 
the  greatest  opposition  act  from  unworthy  motives 
— from  an  unwillingness  to  give  up  their  household 
gods.  These  prefer  the  law,  as  they  are  afraid  to 
trust  their  sexual  interests  in  a  state  of  absolute 
freedom  of  woman.  These  are  **  wiser  than  the 
children  of  seemingly  more  li^^ht,"  and  see  and 
know  that  the  real  principles  of  Free  Love  will 
bring  no  gratification  to  their  abnormal  flesh.     Wo- 


MR.    IIEKRY    C.    WRIGHT.  JT 

man  will  not  then  be  compelled  to  meet  and  surfeit 
the  demand  of  lust,  at  the  cost  of  life,  as  she  now  is. 
We  do  not  intend  to  fully  discuss,  or  reply  to  all  the 
fears  of  the  ill  consequences  of  our  views.  We  think 
we  say  enough  to  help  every  enlightened  reader  out  of 
his  fears.  We  give  him  the  key.  If  that  does  not 
suffice,  we  must  again  refer  him  to  Messrs.  Noys, 
Andrews,  and  Nichols. 

Reader,  we  did  not  take  our  pen  with  a  first  de- 
sire to  hasten  the  downfall  of  the  institution  of 
exclusive  marriage,  even  in  its  lowest  and  law  phases, 
much  less  in  its  highest  spiritual  developments.  We 
are  not  conscious  of  harboring  any  ill  will  towards 
it.  We  have  felt  the  power  of  its  persecuting  arm, 
but  we  have  long  since  out-rode  its  iron  sway,  and 
thoroughly  forgiven  it.  We  judge  co  man  for  his 
connubial  order.  We  encroach  upon  no  man*s  mar- 
riage rights,  nor  will  we  suffer  another  to  judge,  or 
trespass  upon  our  freedom.  To  our  own  master  we 
stand  or  fall.  We  go  at  our  own  cost,  and  we  al- 
low all  others  to  do  the  same.  We  respect  every 
man  in  living  to  his  clearest  and  highest  light,  be 
that  light  more  or  less.  We  feel  but  little  more 
than  sympathy  for  the  many  monsters  of  amative 
perversion  among  our  own  sex.  Wc  wish  them  no 
harm — but  much  good. 

We  did  take  the  pen  to  illustrate  and  defend  the 
principles  of  freedom  in  love,  in  and  for  those  who 
choose  it,  and  to  weaken  the  despotic  power  and  per- 
secuting spirit  of  the  marriage  institution. 


9Z  FREE    LOVE. 

CAAPTER  YIII. 

REVIEW    OF    MR.    WRIGHT    CONTINUED. 

We  return  to  Mr.  Wright's  book.  "  The  ideal  of 
love  and  marriage,  in  every  young  heart,  is  with  one, 
never  with  more  than  one.  Social  discord  and  wron<r 
may  introduce  other  notions,  but  I  understand  a 
deep  signification  in  the  old  story  that  for  Adam 
there  was  but  one  Eve  created.*' 

Whether  the  statement  be  true  or  false,  that  the 
first  development  of  any  young  mind  towards  con- 
nubial love  is  to  one,  is  comparatively  of  no  im- 
portance. The  mind,  in  developing  to  any  new 
thought  or  feeling  towards  woman,  may  generally 
be  so  enlarged,  while  it  is  on  some  person  in  whom 
there  is  some  thing  to  create,  or  call  forth  such 
thoughts  and  feelings.  Besides,  by  precept  and  ex- 
ample, every  person  from  his  earliest  thoughts  of 
marriage  love,  is  made  to  understand  that  his  only 
chance  of  honorable  participation,  is  with  one,  and 
only  one.  However  general  his  entire  love  may  be, 
he  knows  well,  as  he  develops  to  the  normal  desires 
and  calls  of  manhood,  that  he  must  remain  in  his 
fractional  state,  or  more  or  less  call  in  his  scattering 
and  free  loves,  and  Concentrate  them  on  one.  And 
he  certainly  may  as  well  do  this,  for  if  he  long  de- 
lays, all  corresponding  loves,  one  after  another, 
will  be  leaving  him  from  a  like  necessity  on  the  part 


REVIEW    OF    MR.    WRIGHT.  99 

of  others.  Exclusive  marriage,  by  her  process  of 
sexual  draining,  absorbs  to  itself  almost  the  entire 
love  atmosphere,  and  so  leaves  all  who  from  neces- 
sity or  otherwise  remain  out  of  her  bonds,  in  a  state 
of  double  starvation.  In  this  way  she  has  had 
power  to  compel  compliance  to  her  rule  and  order. 

In  our  day,  it  is  wiser  for  most  men  and  women 
to  submit,  or  choose  what  to  them  may  be  the  least 
of  two  evils.  But  who,  from  all  of  these  causes, 
knows  the  power  of  mind  over  mind,  in  the  dual- 
izing and  concentrations  of  love  or  the  power  of 
habit  in  leading  to  it  ?  Mr.  Wright  would  appreciate 
the  full  force  of  all  these  influences  if  brought  to 
bear  on  his  side  of  the  controversy. 

Mr.  Wright  is  the  last  man  whom  we  should  have 
supposed  would  have  referred  for  his  support,  to 
the  mythological  **  story  *'  of  Adam  and  Eve.  We 
are  glad  of  it.  A  little  while  ago,  it  was  a  first  ar- 
gument in  the  minds  of  nine-tenths  of  the  sticklers 
for  dual  marria^^e.  Admitting  this  "story**  taught 
just  what  Mr.  W.  wishes  to  draw  from  it,  it  is  going 
back  six  thousand  years  for  the  testimony  of  men  as 
to  marriage.  What  would  any  reformer  think  of  a 
man  who  should  go  back  so  far  to  settle  the  order 
of  society  in  other  reepects  ?  Mr.  W.  would  pro- 
nounce such  a  man  beside  himself.  He  knows  very 
well  what  he  would  think,  if  I  were  to  cite  him 
back  to  feudalism,  back  to  savagism,  for  arguments 
to  defend  any  moral  question  !    Mr.  W.  so  we  think 


100  FREE    LOYE. 

of  you  in  this  case  !  Even  this  would  be  less  than 
halfway  back  to  his  supposed  dual  pair.  Truth  is 
never  so  straightened  for  foreign  aid. 

But  admitting  every  word  of  Genesis  to  be  a 
literal  and  truthful  revelation  from  God,  it  does  not 
help  the  friends  of  exclusive  marriage.  Every  ar- 
gument which  Mr.  Wright  could  bring  from  it, 
would  be  equally  good  in  favor  of  an  entire  dual 
hermitage.  Adam  was  as  fully  shut  up  by  that 
dual  Providence  of  his  creation,  to  one  woman  so- 
cially, adhesively,  as  he  was  connubially.  So  of 
Eve  to  Adam.  Each  were  shut  up  to  one  person. 
How  long  will  real  reformers — for  in  some  respects 
Mr.  W.  is  one  —  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  waste 
ink,  pen,  and  time,  in  reply  to  such  shallow  and  so- 
phistical inferences  as  this  ?  Can  not  so  a^ed  an 
institution  do  better  than  referr  us  to  its  gray  hairs 
to  command  our  respect  ?  We  tell  the  reader  that 
Mr.  Wright  will  never  allude,  in  this  manner,  to 
**Adam  and  Eve,*'  in  a  public  discussion  with  an 
opponent  of  good  common  sense.  He  is  too  wise 
and  too  shrewd  to  risk  himself  in  such  a  position. 

*  *  *  "Is  the  marriage  tie  capable  of  exten- 
sion ?  If  a  man  finds  in  half  a  dozen  women  equally 
powerful  attractions  to  marriage ;  if  each  exercises 
an  equally  deep,  vitalising,  elevating  influence  on  his 
life  ;  if  the  union  with  each  one  would  be  enough 
to  bless  his  life,  were  all  the  others  exterminated, 
then  he  has  a  right,  if  all  equally  desire  it,  to  be  the 


f  > 


REVIEW   OF    MR.    WRIGHT.  101- 

husband  of  them  all!  Ba^/ what -does  experience 
prove  in  this  matter  ?  The  case  is  not  even  sappos- 
able.     It  is  absurd  in  the  statement." 

Mr.  Wright  here  fairly  puts  the  question.  **l3 
the  marriage  tie,  (connubial  love,)  capable  of  exten- 
sion V*  But  his  reply  to  it  here  is  superficial,  and 
to  us  it  seems  evasive.  Again,  we  say,  admitting 
every  word  of  his  answer  to  his  own  question,  it 
does  not  prove  anything  in  support  of  his  exclusive 
marriage.  If  true,  it  reveals  an  undeveloped  state  of 
mind.  Let  those  who  covet  a  state  of  mind  which 
would  be  entirely  satisfied  with  the  one,  **were  all 
the  others  exterminated,"  pray  for  it.  We  respect- 
fully dissent  from  such  a  sentiment,  and  from  such 
an  experience.  We  ask  no  alliance  to  one  who  is 
capable  of  being  so  filled  by  and  absorbed  in  us. 
We  leave  with  Mr.  Wright  the  entire  glory,  chas- 
tity and  purity  of  such  marriages.  Our  oppo- 
nents need  never  be  jealous  of  us.  We  have  no 
attractions  towards  so  confined  an  atmosphere. 

It  is  not  true  that  a  man  may  not  feel  an  equally 
stronff  connubial  recjard  for  more  than  one.  It  is 
not  uncommon  for  some  of  the  most  spiritually  devel- 
oped minds,  to  find  it  diflScult  to  select  between  two 
or  more.  The  idea  is  entirely  possible  in  nature. 
But  the  mandates  of  society  must  be  obeyed — the 
selection  must  be  made.  One  may  be  received ;  the 
other  must  be  cast  oflf.  Mr.  Wright,  to  do  justice 
to  his  side  of  the  subject,  should  give  his  philosoph- 
9* 


102  FREE    LOVE. 

ical  leasonsfcr  confiRii7g  amativeness  and  not  ad- 
hesiveness, as  both  may  and  do  generally  have  their 
preferences. 

"  The  sentiment  of  love  finds  satisfaction  in  one 
object.  The  passional  element,  which  borrows  the 
holy  name  of  love,  may  crave  a  wider  range.  Whea 
men  say  they  need  a  variety,  they  say,  in  other 
words,  that  in  them,  the  passion  has  the  ascendency 
over  the  sentiment.  The  man  in  whom  the  need 
exists,  should  not  take  the  high  social  rank  implied 
by  the  desire  for  true  marriage,  but  descend  to  that 
level  in  creation  wherein  criminal  passion  makes  no 
distinction  in  its  objects,  and  finds  equal  satisfaction 
in  them  all.  Men  who  advocate  a  "variety,"  know 
that  true,  pure  marriage-love  cannot  be  felt  to  more 
than  one ;  but  they  wish  to  find,  in  their  various 
attractions  to  woman,  a  sanction  for  what  were  other- 
wise unqualified  brutality.'* 

Reader,  I  almost  owe  an  apology  for  the  above 
extract.  I  thought  it  expedient.  I  have  extolled 
Mr.  Wright's  book  as  a  whole.  In  a  few  words,  I 
will  do  justice  to  this  phase  of  it.  On  coming  to  a 
close,  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Wright  attempts  to  fill 
up  what  has  been  wanting  in  sound,  direct,  and  per- 
tinent argument,  by  open-mouthed  and  foul  slander 
of  his  opponents.  In  the  unlimited  and  universal 
manner  in  which  he  has  penned  and  left  the  above, 
it  becomes  aggravated  falsehood.  He,  at  least,  ought 
to  have  **  known  "  this.     If  any  reader,  who  knovrs 


REVIEW    OF   MR.    WRIGHT.  103 

something  of  the  amount  of  falsehood  in  it,  can  give 
him  even  the  apology  of  ignorance,  he  is  bound  in 
charity  to  do  so.  We  confess  to  finding  it  difficult  for 
us  to  do  this.  Again  I  say,  I  covet  not  that  part  of  the 
head  or  heart  which  can  so  ''descend  to  the  level  '* 
of  a  lower  manhood.  His  putting  such  slander  into 
the  mouth  of  his  ideal  lady,  is  not  very  tasteful ; 
(so  it  stands  in  his  book.)  We  will  not  give  what 
would  be  a  just  retort,  lest  we  seem  to  follow  his 
example.  The  reader  of  his  book  will  find  some 
more  like  our  last  quotation,  but  we  pass  it.  Had  it 
emanated  from  a  lower  mind,  and  been  disconnected 
with  so  much  which  was  really  good,  I  should  not 
have  thought  of  noticing  it.  Such  slander  will 
always  injure  the  cause  which  it  indirectly  aims  to 
upbuild ;  so  we  can  afford  to  let  it  pass  back  to  its 
own  side  of  the  house. 

If  the  only  possible  condition  of  connubial  purity 
and  chastity  is  with  one,  and  that  the  one  eternal 
mate,  as  Mr.  W.  teaches,  the  world  is  necessarily  in 
a  deplorable  condition,  for  it  is  naturally  impossible 
for  any  man  or  any  woman  to  be  sure  of  finding  and 
knowing  that  one,  till  far  advanced  in  life.  No  per- 
son can  know  their  mate  till,  or  any  farther  than, 
they  know  themselves.  A  man  cannot  know  his 
own  nature  and  power  faster  than  it  develops  in 
him.  This,  at  the  best,  is  only  little  by  little  ;  or 
gradually.  Towards  woman,  he  first  develops  to  an 
all-absorbing  love  for  the  feminine.     This  may  be  to 


104  FREE    LOVE. 

some  particular  woman,  in  whom  ihe  feminine  ele- 
ment manifests  itself  most  in  accordance  with  his 
ideal  of  woman.  Perhaps  his  own  spiritual  and  in- 
tellectual powers  are  yet  comparatively  in  embryo ; 
80  these  are  secondary  in  their  influence  upon  him. 
He  marries  on  this  plane  of  his  development,  and 
experiences  great  felicity  and  harmony.  He  feels 
his  cup  comparatively  full,  and  "no  room  for  more." 
So  does  his  chosen  one.  In  a  little  time,  each  begin 
to  come  forth  in  the  more  important  features  of  their 
religious  character.  We  will  suppose  this  to  be 
between  twenty-five  and  thirty.  Here  they  are  not 
organized  alike,  and  so,  from  necessity,  they  grow 
apart :  no  fault  of  theirs.  One  is  conservative,  the 
other  reformatory.  One  looks  religiously  back,  the 
other  forward.  We  say,  this  is  no  fault  of  theirs. 
Again,  from  thirty  to  forty,  each  begins  to  really 
know  his  or  her  intellectual  power.  Here  too  they 
go  apart.  One  has  less,  the  other  more  :  no  fault  of 
theirs.  They  still  love  ;  and  perhaps  have  no  less 
love,  but  one's  cup  is  not  now  full,  and  they  have 
not  entire  harmony.  Perhaps  one  is  now  far  from 
the  equal  of  the  other.  Each  may  suffer  more  or 
less  from  this  inequality.  Neither  complains  of  the 
other.  We  write  here  what  we  have  more  than  once 
seen  as  an  actual  fact,  and  what  we  should  have  ex- 
perienced in  our  person,  if  Providence  had  not  in 
the  first  instance  saved  us  from  the  act  of  actual 
marriage.     Still  we  insist  that  marriage,  in  the  case 


REVIEW    OF    MR.    WRIGHT.  106 

described  above,  is  not  false,  or  against  nature.  Such 
a  marriage  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  in  harmony  with 
nature,  and  is  chaste,  on  its  own  plane.  Yet  such  a 
couple  could  not  live  eternally  in  a  first  relation, 
each  to  the  other.  Nature  leaves  room  for,  as  well 
as  works  her  changes  in  such  cases  of  unequal 
growth.  She  gives  various  degrees  of  divorce,  but 
not  always  absolute  and  entire.  She  also  has  her 
degrees  in  marriage.  And  so  far  as  any  one  keeps 
in  harmony  with  her  varied  promptings,  all  is  well. 
There  need  be,  and  there  will  be,  no  collisions. 

Adhesiveness  has  her  degrees  of  concentration, 
and  her  like  changes.  We  are  sure  Mr.  W.  cannot 
fairly  do  away  with  the  force  of  these  suggestions. 
Mr.  Davis  agrees  with  us,  in  the  main,  as  to  the 
past. 

I  think  Mr.  Wright  encourages  sudden  and  vehe- 
ment love  attractions,  by  the  power  which  he  gives 
it  over  the  entire  mental  and  moral  manhood.  He 
represents  its  action  as  uncontrollable,  and  hardly 
leaves  room  for  the  real  power  of  our  free  agency. 
But  whatever  maybe  the  amount  of  truth  iti  his 
statements,  I  must  caution  the  inexperienced  mind 
against  an  unnatural  and  sudden  flow  of  abnormal 
attraction.  We  often  see  this  rush  of  amative ness, 
in  its  reactions  from  the  equally  unnatural  restraints 
of  law  and  bondage.  I  do  not  so  much  condemn  as 
deplore  it.  Though,  under  the  circumstances,  it  is 
not  strange,  its  consequences  are  often  very  unfortu- 


106  FREE    LOVE. 


nate.  Some  very  strong  love  attractions  are  far 
from  being  healthy.  Reason  should  never  fail  to 
guide  wisely  and  safely  the  souPs  ship  of  love.  Let 
me  illustrate.  A  physician  of  the  very  first  emi- 
nence, related  to  me  the  following  case  which  came 
pnder  his  observation.  "A  man  of  refinement  and 
standing  in  society,  suddenly  found  himself  *in 
love '  with  a  lady  of  equal  refinement.  The  lady 
reciprocated  his  attachment,  and  they  were  soon,  as 
is  common  in  such  cases,  absorbed  in  this  over-pow- 
ering love.*'  (Mr.  Wright's  book  would  most 
certainly  justify  its  extreme  power.)  **  The  man 
had  a  wife.  But  she  was  a  real  believer  in  the 
doctrine  of  Move  over  law,'  and  in  'obeying  the 
latest  connubial  affinity.'  She  did  not  wish  to  hinder 
the  testing  of  her  husband's  latest  love,  if  the  thing 
could  be  managed  wisely  in  view  of  the  tongues  of 
out-siders.  The  man  moved  with  his  law  wife,  and 
his  lady  love  to  a  place  where  they  could  manage 
their  love  relations,  unharmed  by  society  around 
them.  In  less  than  two  months,  this  all-controlling 
love  began  to  relax.  It  reacted  to  indiflferenco, 
coldness,  and  a  slight  disgust,  on  both  sides.  All 
extreme  regard  ceased.  Of  course,  they  were  new 
in  an  awkward  dilemma.  But  we  must  leave  thorn 
here."  After  relating,  in  substance,  the  above,  the 
Doctor  said  to  me,  *'  What  do  you  think  of  it  ?  "  I 
I  said,  **  I  think  it  a  case  of  partial  disease  of  the 
affections.     It  was  an  amative  fever."     "  That  is  it," 


REVIEW    OF    MR.    WRIGHT.  10*7 

said  he.  *'  It  begins,  comes  to  its  crisis,  and  ends  in 
reaction,  like  disease. *' 

When  the  system  loses  its  equilibrium,  when  the 
blood  rushes  unnaturally  from  one  part  of  the  body 
to  another,  from  head  to  heart,  or  from  heart  to  head, 
wo  all  consider  it  more  or  less  disease.  It  is  a  real 
derangement  of  the  physical  man.  So  when  nearly 
the  whole  life  and  action  of  our  entire  loves,  social, 
moral,  and  intellectual,  concentrate  upon  the  con- 
nubial or  amative,  the  affectional  equilibrium  is 
lost.  The  mind  is  unbalanced,  and  is  incapable  of 
judging  or  acting  wisely.  This  is  abnormal.  Re- 
vivals almost  always  partake  of  the  same  religious 
disease,  or  abnormalism.  We  fully  admit,  that  even 
this,  in  religion,  or  in  connubial  love,  is  sometimes 
better  than  stagnation  —  than  moral  and  sexual 
death.  But  life  and  love  are  much  better  than 
either. 

I  have  no  doubt,  but  such  cases  of  unbalanced 
love,  as  I  have  related  above,  will  vastly  increase 
for  some  years  to  come.  The  law  bonds  upon  love 
are  to  be  taken  off;  and  men  are  not  yet  sufficiently 
developed,  and  wise  in  experience,  to  use  their  free- 
dom without  much  wrong  and  suffering.  But 
liberty  will  work  its  own  cure.  We  rejoice  in  the 
assurance  of  a  still  larger  amount  of  returning 
health.  Men  and  women  are  too  deeply  involved  in 
what  Mr.  Davis  calls  "  extremism  and  inversionism," 
to  regain  their  health,  without  a  season  of  these 


W8  FREE    LOVE. 

alternate  chills  and  fever.  These  sudden  and  exci- 
ted developments  of  love  are  called  **  falling  in 
love."  It  often  is  *' falling  in  love.''  It  is  better, 
in  every  step  of  our  progress,  to  rise  in  love. 

A  leading  feature  in  Mr.  Wright  and  Mr.  Ballou 
is  an  expression  of  abhorrence  of  any  deviation  from 
one  in  love;  or  of  not  receiving  the  entire  love  and 
worship  of  the  mate.  This  sort  of,  to  us,  sickly 
sentiment,  always  occupies  more  space  than  any  sort 
of  argument.  While  we  have  the  most  entire 
respect  for  those  who,  for  good  reasons,  live  to  their 
exclusive  bonds ;  we  have  none  for  this  narrow  and 
belittleing  feeling  which  these  writers  so  boastingly 
hold  in  the  fore-ground. 

Mr.  Wright  urges  the  necessity  of  striving,  by 
careful  cultivation,  to  perpetuate  love.  This  is  good 
instruction  to  the  undeveloped,  for  whom  he  wrote. 
But  those  who  are  actually  developed  to  their  higher 
plane  of  connubial  love,  have  nothing  to  watch  or 
to  strive  for.  Such  love,  in  entire  spontaneity,  will 
protect  itself.  All  on  that  plane  are  beyond  any 
possible  thought  of  jealousy,  distrust,  or  fear,  as  to 
the  present  integrity,  or  as  to  the  future,  of  a  mate. 

Marriage  makes  one  of  two,  and  one  of  many. 
So  much  so,  that  either  fraction  in  the  one  will  as 
8oon  be  jealous  of  him  or  herself,  as  to  have  the 
same  feeling  towards  any  other  person  in  the  unit, 
**  Perfect  love  casts  out  all  fear  ^'  and  restless  anxi-^ 
eties.     Each  loves  the  other,  through  and  through^ 


ANDREW   JACKSON    DAVIS.  f/^ 

as  him  or  herself.  Yet  in  this  state,  each  person 
in  the  two,  or  in  the  many,  lives  his  or  her  entire 
individuality.  No  one  is  owned  by  or  owns  another. 
Each  is  his  and  her  own ;  and  each  knows  how  to 
live  his  individuality,  so  as  not  to  harm  another. 
Dear  reader,  all  of  this  is  possible.  Perhaps  not 
possible  for  children,  but  possible  for  real  adults. 
There  is  a  lack  of  spontaneity  in  Mr.  Wright*s  love 
marriages.  So  does  each  lose  much  in  individuality. 
But  more  of  this  when  we  come  to  Mr.  Davis. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

ANDREW   JACKSON    DAVIS GENERAL  REMARKS QUO- 
TATIONS   FROM    HIS    BOOK. 

A.  J.  Davis,  as  a  Clairvoyant  Medium,  is  the 
miracle  of  the  age.  We  think  him,  in  some  sense, 
justly  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  "head,"  as  a 
teacher  of  the  Harmonial  Philosophy.  We  say,  as 
a  teacher,  for,  with  Paul,  we  make  a  distinction  be- 
tween a  teacher  and  a  father,  and  we  do  not  consider 
him  the  laiter.  The  mass  of  spiritualism  which  has 
since  flooded  us  with  its  intellectual  and  moral  bles- 
sings, and  also  with  its  fanaticisms,  has  produced 
nothing  like  him,  as  a  whole.  Several  minds  in  this 
and  in  the  other  sphere,  have  successfully  criticised 
10 


Va  FREE    LOVE.     Wli'A 

some  parts  of  his  works.     Many  of  his  moral  writ- 
ings are  hke  prophecy,  far  in  advance  of  his  own 
actual  moral  elevation.     Perhaps  this  is    true,  in 
a  degree,  of  all  reformers.     Mr.  Davis,  as  a  teacher, 
occupies  a  field  of  vast  extent,  and  of  overwhelming 
importance.     Through  him,  wisdom  is  uttering  her 
voice  to  the  sons  of  men.     He  now  writes  directly 
to,  and  for,  a  large  class  of  minds.     Many  of  these 
minds,  though  of  reformatory  blood,  are  not  yet  past 
the  star-light  of  harmonial  truth.     If  there  was  a 
Divine  wisdom  in  the  thing  signified,  by  the  **vail** 
over  the  face  of  Moses,  when  giving  the  Law  to  the 
Jews, — and  I  believe  there  was, — a  like  wisdom,  for 
like  reasons,  may  hide  from  our  seer   and  teacher 
some  of  the  higher  freedom  of  the  more  glorious 
future,  by  its  spiritual  veil.     Mr.  Davis,  evidently  to  i 
us,  does  "not  see  to  the  end**   of  some  of  the  law" 
phases,  which  still  linger  in  the  infancy  of  his  har- 
monial philosophy.     As  a  believer  in  a  wise  and  holy 
expediency,  we  cannot  complain  of  Mr.  D.*s  spirits 
teachers  for  this  ; — and  they  may  be  alike  untaught, . 
We  in  no  way  find  fault  with  the  Providence.    Even 
the  ancient  Jesus  found  it  necessary  to  leave   the 
world  without  revealing   all  of  his  highest  percep- 
tions of  truth  to  his  dearest  and  best  beloved  disci- 
ples ; — much  less  to  the  world  in  general.     They — 
the  disciples, — could  *^not  bear  it.'*     Moses,  Jesus,  ^ 
and  every  reformer  since,  were  likely  to  be  the  best' 
judges,  each  for  himself  in  this  matter.     We  only 


ANDREW   JACKSON    DAVIS.  Ill 

wish  to  see  all  highly  inspired  minds  so  write  as 
not  to  cross  the  track  of  the  future,  and  come  direct- 
ly in  collision  with  it.  But  we  wave  this  desire  or 
seeming  objection. 

We  love  Mr.  Davis.  Fromapartial  diversity  in  our 
mental  "temperament  ;"  he  is  not  our  first  mascu- 
line mental  love.  But  no  other  man  living  ever  in- 
structed us  as  much  as  he.  We  have  been  taught 
much  higher  moral  or  spiritual  truths  by  another. 
We  reverence  A.  J.  Davis  as  a  teacher. 

We  now  approach  no  written  testimony  with  more 
reverence  than  we  do  his.  We  love  and  respect  his 
guiding  angels.  But  God  has  created  in  all  of  us 
our  own  separate  individuality.  He  will  never  re- 
call it ; — I  speak  reverently.  Nor  should  we  ever 
yield  the  first  iota  of  it  to  any  being  below  Him. 
When  Mr.  Davis  writes  to  my  understanding,  new 
and  important  truths,  I  most  thankfully  receive 
them.  When  he,  or  any  other  mind,  writes  what  I 
cannot  understand,  I  leave  it,  but  with  care  not  to 
oppose  it.  But  when  he  opposes  what  I  know  to  be 
truth,  I  have  no  fear  to  review  and  criticise  him. 
The  reader  will  bear  with  my  confidence.  Such 
an  assurance  is  not  necessarily  dogmatism.  Every 
man  knows  some  things.  I,  too,  am  a  medium  of 
over  twenty  year's  steady  growth ;  and  not  only 
write  in  harmony  with  a  legion  of  angels,  but  I 
write  what  I  am  identified  with,  by  having  traveled 
all  tlie  way  to  it.     I  am  responsible  to  the  world  for 


112  FRKE    LOVE. 

my  book  ;  yet  I  have  leave  of  my  guiding  angels  to 
invite  Mr.  Davis  and  his  guiding  angels  to  a  full 
discussion  of  the  point  of  difference  between  us,  in 
the  presence  of  the  men  of  earth,  and  the  men  of 
the  spheres.  1,  and  we,  most  respectfully  challenge 
him  and  them  to  the  discussion.  And  we  add,  if 
this  challenge  shall  be  taken  no  notice  of,  without 
other  reasons,  we  shall  not  accuse  these  opponents  of 
cowardice,  or  of  other  unworthy  motives.  We  take 
our  position  in  this,  but  judge  no  other  man's  or  an- 
gePs  duty  or  privilege. 

Mr.  Davis'  book  on  Marriage  has  instructed  us. 
He  goes  deeper  into  the  philosophy  of  mind,  and  is 
much  more  liberal,  on  the  whole,  than  Mr.  Wrio-ht. 
It  no  less  elevates  love.  Mr.  Wright's  book  was 
comparatively  more  from  his  heart.  Mr.  Davis'  was 
more  from  his  head, — but  from  the  upper  [\T\di  wisdom 
part  of  it.  In  Mr.  Davis,  there  is  little  less  in 
amount  or  volume  of  the  magnetism  of  love,  and 
vastly  more  in  wisdom — in  higher  truth.  Mr.  Davis 
has  his  ''  seven  phases  of  marriage,"  and  contends  for 
the  naturalness  of  these  various  forms  —  bigamy, 
polygamy,  and  omnigamy, — on  the  several  lower 
planes  of  the  mind ;  and  so  he  is  almost  entirely  free 
from  the  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  the  past  and 
present.  Such  a  spirit  in  a  writer  on  so  sensitive  a 
theme,  is  most  lovely,  and  entirely  beyond  this  age, 
Mr.  Davis  testifies  that  on  the  harmonial  plane, 
monogamy,  or  one  man  with  one  woman,  is  the  only 


ANDREW   JACKSON    DAVIS,  ll^ 

possible  marriage.  In  his  reply  to  Dr.  Nichols  he 
argues  against  a  "variety."  He  repeats  his  " ever- 
lasting gratitude  to  Mr.  Wright  for  the  exclusive 
feature  of  his  book  ;  and,  like  him,  confounds  ancient 
and  modern  polygamy  with  modern  Free  Love.  He 
entirely  ignores  the  true  and  elevating  principles  of 
the  latter,  and  associates  it,  sometimes  with  partly 
the  same  form,  and  sometimes  with  the  monopoly  of 
polygamy,  which  is  a  different  form,  but  always  with 
the  undeveloped  and  sexual  relations  of  the  long 
past,  or  of  the  far  back  to  a  rude  age.  Whether 
this  is  from  the  deepest  ignorance  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject or  otherwise,  I  leave  for  the  reader  to  judge. 
Mr.  Davis  knows  that  the  monogaraic,  as  well  as 
the  omnigamic  form  extend  back  alike  into  the  past. 
And  the  "pot"  of  the  past  cannot  successfully  slan- 
der the  '*  kettle  "  of  the  same  past,  in  relation  to  its 
color.  We  have  never  charged  exclusive  dual  mar- 
riage, as  such,  of  sensualism ;  nor  will  our  opponents 
successfully  fasten  the  latter  to  the  car  of  Free 
Love,  as  such.  The  effort  is  most  inglorious.  I 
did  not  expect  it  from  Mr.  Davis.  The  most  char- 
itable conclnsion  possible  to  put  upon  all  this  is, 
that  it  is  the  fruit  of  ignorance.  We  have  felt  no 
disposition  to  summon  up  the  dead  past  to  directly 
help  our  cause,  or  to  wound  our  opponents ;  though 
we  might  have  just  as  truthfully  done  so.  All  forms 
of  love  have  been  more  or  less  drunk  with  sensual- 
ism in  the  past.  Mr.  Davis  tells  us  this  was  more 
10* 


114  FREE   LOVE.  "^^^^ 

natural  in  the  infancy  of  the  race.  So  I  believe, 
Mr.  Wright  goes  back  six  thousand  years  to  find  a 
pair  to  support  his  dual  order.  Mr.  Davis  would 
send  Free  Love  back  to  degrade  it.  (I  do  not  say 
this  was  his  motive.)  I  am  talking  it  for  granted, 
that  the  reader  has  seen  Mr.  Davis'  book.  We  shall 
be  to  it  soon.  Gentlemen,  we  decline  the  journey 
for  either  object.  We  disapproved  of  this  in  Mr. 
Wright;  and  we  have  no  need  to  go  back  for  our 
support.  Mind  is  with  us,  and  we  can  read  it,  but  if 
Free  Love  has  so  great  an  antiquity  as  Mr.  D.  gives 
it,  we  respectfully  ask  all  who  have  a  peculiar  re- 
spect for  ancient  institutions,  to  let  this  have  its. 
proper  weight  in  our  favor.  This  is  entirely  fair.  We 
prophecy  that  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  such 
men  as  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Wright  will  be  compelled 
to  see  a  distinction  between  our  philosophy  of  sex- 
ual freedom,  and  that  of  the  past  or  present  sensual 
freedom, — or  more  correctly,  sensual  bondage,  —  as 
we  see  and  confess  the  vast  distance  between  their 
exclusive  marriage,  and  the  general  marriage  of  the 
present,  and  nearly  the  entire  past.  We  do  them 
justice,  as  they  do  not  us. 

The  reader  will  find  our  first  extract  on  page  297 
of  Mr.  Davis'  book.  We  think  this  the  most 
appropriate,  and  the  nearest  related  to  our  subject 
and  argument  of  anything  in  the  book. 

"I  have  shown,"  says  Mr.  Davis,  "that  man's 
love-department  is  divided  into  six  separate  actuating 


ANDREW   JACKSON   DAVIS.  ^^ 

life-principles,  each  having  its  own  independent 
mode  of  being  and  doing.  Each  has  an  attraction 
of  its  own,  and  therefore  seeks  a  separate  gratification* 
From  these  six  loves  there  emanates  six  atmospheres. 
Each  atmosphere  is  composed  of  differently  shaped 
atoms,  having,  consequently,  different  affinities  and 
manifestations.  But  the  six  emanations,  neverthe- 
less, commingle  and  blend  into  one  atmosphere, 
which  then  environs  the  individual  as  the  air  sur- 
rounds the  earth. 

"  This  aromal  sphere  of  the  soul  is  what  sensitive 
natures  feel  on  the  approach  of  different  persons; 
realising  an  attraction  or  repulsion — being  affected 
pleas iirably  or  otherwise,  without  perceiving  a 
palpable  cause.  This  atmosphere  is  what  a  dog 
smells  in  his  master's  path. 

'*  Each  love  has  also  a  different-coZorec?  atmosphere  ; 
this  fact  in  connection  with  the  diflferent  shaped 
atoms,  constitutes  and  makes  the  individuality. 

"  And  each  love  gravitates  to  its  kind.  The  parti- 
cles composing  self-love  are  angular  ;  hence  you  can 
feel  the  nettles  of  selfishness.  Parental  love  is 
composed  of  more  spherical  atoms  ;  hence  children 
and  horses,  cats  and  dogs,  feel  the  presence  of  its 
atmosphere.  Animals  are  readily  domesticated 
under  the  influence  of  this  love. 

"Strangers  can  feel  the  aroma  of  fraternal  love; 
its  atmosphere  is  finer  and  its  particles  more  smooth 
and  penetrative. 


116  FREE    LOVE. 

"And  you  can  feel,  in  certain  persons,  the  charac- 
ter of  the  conjugal  love ;  whether  it  be  on  the 
subordinate  scale,  or  elevated  to  the  higher  phases. 
Its  particles  are  gross  or  refined  in  shape  and  color 
in  accord  with  its  intrinsic  growth.  Self-love  is,  in 
everything,  a  bigamist ;  it  invariably  asks  for  two , 
pieces,  a  common  expression  of  selfishness. 

"  Parental  love  is  a. polygarnist ;  it  calls  for  plurality 
of  pets  or  productions.  Its  attractions  lean  towards 
many  children ;  and  embraces  many  even  more 
rapturously  than  one.  If  children  are  not  desired 
by  all,  it  is  mainly  owing  to  external  circumstances. 

**  Fraternal,  filial  and  universal  loves  are  by  nature 
omnigamic  in  their  affinities.  They  love  a  countless 
variety  of  objects  and  subjects.  In  their  rapturous 
and  ever-widening  sympathies,  they  encircle  millions 
at  once.  It  will  be  a  glorious  era,  and  exceedingly 
peaceful,  when  these  'Moves**  can  have  a  practical 
development. 

**  But  conjugal  love,  the  marriage  principle,  when 
in  its  juvenile  or  adolescent  stages,  includes  all  the 
preceeding  forms ;  it  is  a  bigamist,  a  polygamist,  an 
omnigamistj  and  is  unsteady ;  but  with  maturity 
and  with  civility  of  development  comes  the  power  to 
love  but  ONE  counterpart.  And  when  thus  developed, 
the  atoms  of  conjugal  love  are  spirally  shaped ;  the 
female  interlocking  with  the  male  atmosphere ;  each 
flowing  into  the  other's  being." 

The  above,  we  understand  to  be  Mr.  Davis*  clair- 


ANDREW   JACKSON    DAVIS.  117 

voyant  testimony.  To  us,  it  contains  some  of  the 
deepest  and  most  clear  mental  philosophy  which  we 
have  ever  seen  in  print;  and  also  some  which  we 
think  complex,  uncertain  and  erroneous.  The  entire 
distinctness  and  individuality  of  each  faculty,  and 
also  their  union  and  harmony,  the  various  shaped 
and  colored  atmospheres,  all  commends  itself  to  our 
understanding.  All  of  this  is  very  beautiful.  It  is 
a  real  jewel.  That  these  loves  in  their  individuality^ 
are  one  a  '*  bigamist,*'  one  a  "polygamist,**  and 
three  "omnigamist,**  while  the  sixth,  the  sexual, 
passes  through,  in  its  growth,  all  of  these  phases, 
up  to,  or  down  to  the  monogamist,  is  more  doubtful. 
We  do  not  like  to  take  the  room  to  give  our  entire 
objections  to  some  part  of  it.  Why  could  he  not 
have  informed  us  whether  any  other  faculty  changes 
its  form  in  progression  ?  This  is  left  entirely  in  the 
dark  for  so  important  a  subject.  But  the  question 
is,  what  are  they,  each  and  all,  when  acting  in  the 
highest  state  of  union  and  harmony  ?  For  they  are 
one,  as  well  as  many.  Conjugal  love  grows  and 
develops  to  the  "power  to  love  but  one  counterpart/* 
**And  when  thus  developed,  the  atoms  of  this 
"love  are  spirally  shaped." 

Now  this  is  a  tremenduous  proposition.  This  is 
the  hinge  on  which  civilization  turns.  It  should  not 
have  been  passed  so  slightly — no  argument — no 
proof — but  testimony  only.  We  have  testified  that 
this  love  will  develop  to   an  ability  to  love  mcrre 


118  .      .        FREE    LOVE. 

than  one,  and  we  have  argued  to  prove  it.  But  we 
are  glad  of  so  much  from  Mr.  Davis.  It  seems  that 
sexual  love  has  been  right  in  the  past,  in  its  free 
loves.  It  was  acting  to  its  nature.  Children  should 
not  act  like  men.     This  is  quite  a  step  gained. 

Progression  generally  brings  enlargement  and  an 
increase  of  power.  But  we  find  connubial  love  con- 
tracting in  progression,  decreasing  in  breadth  and 
extent  of  power,  as  it  advances.  How  remarkable 
that  every  man,  as  he  attempts  to  defend  exclusive 
marriage,  reverses  the  order  of  every  natural  lawf 
and  never  gives  a  substantial  reason  for  so  doing. 
They  seldom  give  us  any  reason.  Mr.  Davis,  do 
other  loves  change  their  form  by  progression  ?  If 
so,  in  what  direction  ?  Do  they  contract  and  cen» 
tralise,  or  do  they  expand  and  enlarge  ?  We  are 
inquirers  and  learners.  As  Mr.  D.  said  nothing  of 
their  change,  we  will  conclude  they  do  not :  we 
mean,  of  course,  in  form  of  manifestation.  We  have 
no  evidence  of  this  change  in  amativeness,  in  its 
separate  individuality.  We  admit,  that  as  progres- 
sion brings  a  relative  change  between  it  and  other 
faculties,  so  its  action  may  to  the  same  extent 
change.  Admitting  the  "shape*'  of  the  connubial 
atmosphere  does  change,  how  does  this  hinder  its 
fitting  all  alike  progressed  opposites?  Does  Mr.  D. 
mean  to  teach  us  that  this  atmosphere  is  so  concen- 
trated upon,  so  confined  to,  the  one,  that  it  has  no 
power  to  get  a  release,  and  so  stray  elsewhere.     We 


ANDREW   JACKSOil    DAVIS.  119 

do  not  believe  in  any  permanent  release  or  suspension. 
But  we  insist,  that  "to  divide  is  not  to  take  away." 
We  do  not  withdraw  our  adhesive  love  from  one  in 
order  to  love  another.  No  more  do  we  the  connu- 
bial. Mr.  Davis,  like  others  of  his  faith,  does  not 
marry,  exclusively  marry,  all  of  the  connubial 
atmosphere.  He  allows  some  part  of  it  to  act  in 
harmony  with  the  laws  of  the  higher  loves — with 
the  "universal  loves. '*  As  a  comparatively  high 
mental  philosopher,  we  call  him  back  to  this  subject. 
His  work  is  hardly  begun.  He  is  bound,  on  every 
principle  of  justice,  to  give  us  at  least  some  clue  to 
tlie  law  which  separates  this  faculty,  and  frees  a  part 
and  confines  a  part.  Show  us  why  some  part,  (we 
do  not  know  what  part — the  distinction  is  his,  and 
his  friends,  not  ours,)  can  be  non-exclusive,  and 
other  parts  cannot  be.  As  he  has  failed  to  give  us 
any  clue  to  this,  we  go  in  search  of  proof,  but  we 
fail  to  find  it.  If  we  take  the  outer  man  as  an  index 
of  the  inner,  we  are  not  relieved.  We  see  nothing 
more  incompatible  in  this  sense  with  the  omnigamic 
form  in  coitionary  love,  than  in  any  other,  any 
higher.  Mr.  D.  would  and  does  virtually  admit 
this.  We  insist,  then,  that  we  have  a  right  to  call 
for  proof. 

At  first,  our  opponents,  like  Mr.  Ballou,  contended 
that  always  and  everywhere,  every  act  of  vari- 
ety was,  per  se,  "more  or  less  adulterous.*'  Long 
since  many  of  these  have  arrived  nearly  to  Mr.  D.*8 


120  TREE    LOVE,     HAHX 

position,  that  various  orders  might  have  been  right 
in  the  past,  and  possibly  to  some  extent  in  the 
present.  But  these  now  contend  lustily  that  "  any 
how,  they  know  the  exclusively  dual  is  the  highest^ 
and  the  final  of  connubial  love/'  On  the  whole,, 
this  is  a  real  gain  in  the  right  direction.  We  took 
our  pen  to  rout  them  from  this  last  stand  point, 
and  we  are  sanguine  of  final  success.  Here  is  their 
last  breast- w:ork,  and  here  will  come  the  death-strug- 
gle of  exclusiveness.  Mr.  Davis,  a  noble  and  an  hon- 
orable leader,  has  taken  his  position  in  this  gap. 
We  liope  and  believe  he  will  never  surrender  this 
post,  while  he  has  any  philosophical  ammunition  left 
to  defend  it.  We  court  ihe  discussion  of  this  last 
question.  What  is  the  highest  order  of  connubial 
love  ?  This  book  contains  our  argumentative  reply 
to  the  question.  Will  our  opponents  give  us  as 
thorough  and  as  direct  a  defence  of  their  position,  if. 
the  thing  is  possible. 

Mr.  Davis  defines  marriage  to  be  "  the  union  of 
the  essence  of  two  atoms.''  We  add,  the  union  of 
two  or  more  atoms.  There  is  a  duality  in  marriage  ; 
it  is  between  the  two  sides — the  male  and  the  female 
atmospheres.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  Mr.  D.  sees 
this  duality.  He  sees  a  healthful  harmony  in  the 
Joining  ojf  the  two — a  man  and  a  woman.  We  see 
a  still  greater  harmony  in  th«  marriage  of  many. 

Even  much  of  the  higher  harmony  of  marriage, 
which  he  does  teach,  or  foretell,  he  carries  to  tha> 


ANDREW    JACKSON    DAVIS.  Hi 

other  sphere  for  its  practical  realization.  Yet  all  of 
it,  and  more  will  be  experienced  here,  and  on  this 
earth.  Like  Paul  in  his  "third  heavens,"  and 
Swede nborg  in  his  **  celestial  spheres,*'  he  sees  things 
there,  which  are  but  clairvoyant  views  of  things  to 
come,  and  to  be  enjoyed  here.  He  sets  untruthful 
bounds  to  the  present,  and  coming  attainments  on 
our  earth. 

"Repulsion,"  I  believe,  is  considered  by  Mr.  D., 
as  a  negative  J  or  a  less  attraction,  and  designed  to 
regulate  the  various  degrees  of  attraction.  At  least, 
this  is  our  view.  And  should  we  admit  that  those 
on  a  widely  different  plane  may  never  be  so  far  at- 
tracted to  each  other,  as  to  desire  and  normally  enjoy 
all  of  the  rights  of  connubial  love,  it  is  still  true 
that  those  on  the  same  plane,  and  of  "  like  temper- 
ment,"  may.  Such  cannot  in  freedom,  be  entirely 
exclusive.  That  which  joins  them  to  one,  will  join 
to  all  on  the  same  plain,  and  of  the  same  "  tempera- 
ment." The  ability  to  appreciate  the  one,  gives  the 
ability  to  appreciate  all  others  on  the  same  plain  and 
of  the  same  temperament. 

Mr.  Davis  teaches  us  that  the  best  we  can  do  at 
present,  in  seeking  a  connubial  mate,  is,  if  possible, 
to  reach  the  *•  spiritual  plane,"  and  see  that  the 
"central  temperaments"  meet  in  harmony.  Then 
by  effort,  and  a  careful  culture,  all  others,  or  any 
less  degree  of  repulsion,  can  be  brought  into  sub- 
mission, and  perhaps  at  last  into  love,  and  so  render 
U 


122  .>IVy      FREE   LOVE.      (aVik 

the  union  eternal.  If  these  repulsions  are  healthy 
and  normal,  this  course,  so  far  destroys  spontainety ; 
and,  like  Mr.  Wright,  he,  in  this  manner,  detracts 
from  individuality,  for  the  sake  of  unity.  If  these 
repulsions  are  unhealthy,  we  give  the  same  advice, 
and  add  more  to  it.  We  advise  all  to  at  least  overcome 
these  little  repulsions,  so  far  as  they  are  abnormal, 
between  all  on  the  same  plane.  But  never,  in  any 
case,  or  for  any  reason,  to  suppress  or  oppress  a 
healthy  repulsion.  Free  Love  neither  requires  nor 
allows  any  such  sacrifice.  It  leaves  unabridged  the 
most  perfect  spontaniety  and  individuality.  The 
centrifugal  force  is  as  important  as  the  centripetal, 
and  we  would  leave  all  natural  forces  alike  free  in 
matter  or  in  mind. 

Yet  we  insist  even  here,  that  as  benevolence  can 
do  every  other  act  of  utility  in  harmony  with  its 
general  law  of  justice  and  mercy,  over  these  lesser 
repulsions,  without  harming  them,  so  the  same  is 
true,  to  some  extent,  on  this  subject.  There  are 
various  good  motives  which  may  wisely  lead  to  the 
ultimates  of  love.  A  degree  of  need,  mutual  and 
normal  enjoyment,  and  the  creation  of  offspring,  are 
among  them.  In  the  first  and  second  cases,  at  least, 
if  the  two  do  not  mix  atmospheres  any  farther  than 
they  harmonize,  no  harm  is  done.  This  is  sometimes 
possible.  Not  always.  As  I  shall  not  take  the  room 
to  prove  this  last  proposition,  the  reader  can  take  or 
leave  it  as  it  seems  to  be  truth  or  otherwise  to  him. 

II 


ANDREW  JACKSON  DAVIS.  123 

I  am  sure  Mr.  Davis  will  not  tell  us  that  God 
ever  made  two  persons  of  the  opposite  sex,  who  were 
entire  attraction,  and  no  repulsion.  Then  nature 
never  perfectly  married  two.  But  nature  may,  and 
probably  does,  create  a  perfect  fitness  for  each  and 
for  all  in  the  race  ;  then  why  not  let  each  find  that 
supply  in  the  race  ?  Why  try  to  improve  upon  his 
works  ?  Why  not  allow  a  perfect  spontaniety,  and 
not  warp  each  individuality  for  the  sake  of  unity  ? 
Why  not  allow  the  race  to  progress  to  a  higher  and 
more  perfect  harmony,  in  a  perfect  spontaniety? 
Why  marry  any  man,  real  man,  harmonial  man,  one 
iota  beyond  his  normal  and  spontaneous  attractions  ? 
Why  labor  to  assimilate  the  one  to  the  other  more 
than  is  strictly  natural  ?  Let  each  and  every  person 
differ  from  me  eternally,  so  far  as  they  were  made  to 
difi'er.  Universal  love  will  harmonize  and  supply 
all.  I  shall  find  every  phase  of  marriage  somewhere, 
and  every  mental,  moral  and  material  want  supplied. 
I  have  no  right  to  ask  or  expect  a  perfect  **  rest  *'  in 
any  one  woman,  but  I  have  such  a  right  in  the  race 
— in  woman.  So  I  give  myself  to  woman.  If  I 
find  much  more  **rest"  in  some  one  woman,  than  in 
any  other — and  this  is  natural — I  may  and  should 
take  and  enjoy  it. 

On  page  411,  Mr.  Davis  comes  directly  to  the 
question  of  a  "variety''  in  love.  But  he  does  this 
in  reply  to  Dr.  Nichols.  For  two  reasons,  I  think 
it  unnecessary  for  me  to  quote  much,  or  write  much 
in  reviewinor  it. 


-fiM  -^  '  FREE    LOVE. 

First,  I  see  from  ''Nichols'  Journal"  of  last  month, 
that  the  Dr.  has  replied  to  him  in  a  later  edition  of 
his  work  on  marriage.  Second,  Mr.  Davis  resolves 
the  question  of  a  variety  in  love,  into  the  question 
of  the  "fickleness,  unsteadiness,"  or  otherwise,  of 
love.  On  this,  I  certainly  have  no  controversy  with 
Mr.  Davis.  I  doubt  whether  Dr.  Nichols  has.  We 
all  admit  that  love,  in  an  undeveloped  state,  is  some 
times  fickle.  I  am  sure  it  will  not  be  so  in  true 
harmony.  Mark,  I  only  contend  that  we  may  love 
more  than  one.  I  think  I  do  not  favor  divorce,  in 
the  present  state  of  the  world,  as  much  as  Mr.  Davis 
or  Mr.  Wright.  They  allow  a  variety  by  a  succes- 
sion of  persons  ;  I  more  by  a  succession  of  acts,  but 
without  "putting  away."  I  do  not  like  "putting 
away."  It  often  partakes  of  a  much  greater  degree 
of  injustice  than  entire  exclusiveness.  Nature  does 
not  often,  after  forming  or  permitting  so  entire  a 
union,  absolutely  and  entirely  put  away.  As  a  fact, 
I  never  advised  the  separation  of  man  and  wife. 
Perhaps,  in  a  few  cases,  more  wisdom  might  have 
lead  me  to  do  this.  On  the  whole,  I  do  not  gener- 
ally approve  of  too  violently  disturbing  past  and 
present  relations,  to  get  to  the  better  which  we  may 
justly  hold  in  promise.  Sometimes  it  may  be  wise. 
Mr.  Davis  asks :  "  Does  not  every  well  developed, 
person  obey  the  law  of  harmony  ?  What  is  harmony 
but  the  unity  of  variety — that  is  the  centralization 
of  diversity? "     I  only  reply,  a  variety  in  harmony, 


ANDREW   JACKSON    DAVIS.  125 

is  consistent  with  the  action  of  every  love  of  the 
mind.  Connubial  love  "centralises**  on  woman. 
He  adds  ;  "  Every  love,  as  I  have  hitherto  affirmed,  is 
monogamio :  1  speak  now  of  the  regulated  soul. 
When  the  soul  finds  that  occupation  which  meets  its 
attractions,  it  does  not  wish  to  be  divorced  therefrom, 
but  steadily  loves  and  labors  onward."  I  fully  agree 
with  this  sentiment,  as  I  understand  him  here  in 
the  use  of  the  word  "monogamic.*'  In  my  reply 
to  Mr.  Ballou,  I  said  that  every  faculty  was,  in  one 
sense,  confined  to  one  desire — one  object.  But  man, 
in  this  "regulated'*  state,  finds  this  one  desire — one 
object,  met  in  many  persons.  Even  benevolence  has 
but  one  desire — it  desires  but  one  object ;  still  it 
takes  a  universe  to  supply  material  for  its  grat- 
ification. 

"  Alimentiveness "  has  but  *^  one  desire,*'  but  it 
takes  a  variety  of  articles,  and  a  variety  of  diverse 
mixtures  to  fully  supply  it.  **  But  presently  comes 
a  fatigue,  a  thought  of  monotony,  a  longing  for 
novelty,'*  in  exclusive  monogamic  marriage.  "  Well, 
have  true  lovers  no  other  resources  ?  Let  me  think. 
*  *  •*  *  Society  is  accessible— friends  are  to 
be  visited  and  entertained,  the  imperative  demands 
of  the  remaining  five  affections  are  to  be  considered, 
and  to  all  these  varieties  may  be  added  an  endless 
programme  of  pleasurable  efforts  and  realizable 
aspirations  for  the  world*s  advancement.** 

Mr.  Davis  has  here  totally  annihilated  his  entire 
11* 


126  FREE   LOVB. 

argument,  if  he  meant  it  as  an  argument,  from  the 
monogamic  nature  of  all  the  loves.  Because,  if  that 
monogamic  law  confines  connubial  love  to  one 
person,  it  alike  confines  every  love  to  one  person. 
So  all  of  this  "society,"  and  these  many  *' friends,'* 
are  licentious.  That  law,  so  carried  out,  would  take 
all,  like  the  mythological  Adam  and  Eve,  into  a  dual 
hermitage. 

Mr.  Davis  expresses  his  opinion  of  our  views 
somewhat  freely,  but  we  pass  it.  *'  Can  there  be 
freedom  in  error  ?  "  No,  never.  "  The  truth  shall 
make  you  free.''  Yes,  always.  But  we  ask  out 
opponent,  what  is  truth  ?  Where  is  the  truth  on 
this  subject  ?  and  we  take  our  present  leave  of  his 
slight  argument,  (we  are  not  sure  that  he  really 
meant  it  as  an  argument,)  by  inviting  him  back  to 
the  subject. 

Mr.  Davis  refers  to  the  testimony  of  Swedenborg, 
as  to  the  dual  marriages  of  heaven ;  and  relates  a 
particular  case  of  great  glory,  resplendent  beauty, 
and  comparative  loveliness.  Probably  no  testimony 
from  the  other  spheres  has  gone  past  this.  Jesus 
testified  beyond  it,  but  from  what  evidence,  we  do 
not  know.  In  the  nuptial  pair  which  Swedenborg 
describes,  much  of  their  beauty,  to  him,  was  from 
their  beautiful  clothing.  He  writes  much  of  tlw) 
coverings,  or  apparel  of  angels,  as  well  as  of  their 
marriages,  and  yet  he  barely  drops  the  testimony,  that 
**  the  innermost  angels,  go  naked."     (I  quote  from 


ANDREW  JACKSON    DAVIS.  ]Wt 

memory.)  I  testify  that  there  is  no  exclusive  mar- 
riage or  clothing  in  the  higher  or  real  heavens.  All 
exclusiveness,  and  all  veils  are  there  taken  away, 
Nature  is  too  pure  and  too  beautiful  to  need,  or  be 
marred,  by  covering.  But  we  should  have  supposed 
that  even  if  they  were  naked,  they  might  have  ap- 
peared in  clothing  to  his  sight.  It  would  have  been 
wise.     Still  we  have  no  doubt  but  exclusive  marriaore 

o 

and  clothing  may  be  common  in  Paradise,  Purgatory 
and  the  Hells.  I  presume  Swedenborg  saw  that 
loving  couple,  in  what  I  should  call  Paradise — or' 
some  of  the  lower  heavens.  Paul  saw,  in  vision, 
to  the  "third  heavens,**  but  he  thought  it  not  ex- 
pedient then  to  tell  us  what  he  saw  there.  The 
customs  of  heaven  and  of  earth,  on  the  same  moral 
plane,  will  be  nearly  alike. 

But  there  is  another  interesting  view  of  this  case, 
which  may  be  suggested,  as  it  is  so  appropriate  a 
reply  to  Mr.  Davis.  Mr.  Davis  tells  us  in  his  book, 
that  it  was  "visions  of  the  vulvar  female  extremist" 
which  "  supplied  Swedenborg  with  material  for  his 
infernal  spheres."  We  saw,  twelve  years  ago,  that 
the  great  seer's  description  of  the  **  celestial  angels*' 
of  heaven,  was  nothing  more  than  a  truthful  view 
of  some  of  the  celestial  angels  of  our  sphere.  It 
did  not  exceed  the  truth  of  the  moral  or  spiritual 
elevation  of  some  minds  of  our  mundane  world. 
And  we  then  thought  it  more  than  probable  that  he 
was  only  relating  "visions  *'  of  the  future  elevation  of 


128  FREE    LOVE. 

progressed  humanity  on  our  globe.  With  this  view, 
his  relations  of  the  glorious  nuptials  of  heaven 
might  have  been  simply  a  just  tribute  of  prophesy 
of  Mr.  Wright's  and  Mr.  Davis'  Love  marriage,  and 
possibly  the  identical  image  of  **  Ernest  and  Nina'* 
in  our  friend  Wright's  mind.  But  we  have  no  need 
to  resort  to  such  an  exposition,  believing,  as  we  do, 
that  what  exists  here  exists  there. 

Mr.  Davis  sees  and  foretells  a  coming  war — **  a 
bloodless  war,"  on  the  subject  of  marriage  :  and  yet 
in  his  position,  he  seems  compelled  to  entirely  ignore 
one  of  the  first,  if  not  the  first,  great  and  honorable 
champions  in  this  war,  John  H.  Noyes.  We  tell  Mr. 
Davis,  the  hardest  battle  will  come  when  and  where 
men  are  required  to  relinquish  their  monopolizing 
grasp  upon  woman.  When  the  man  feels  that  the 
last  vestige  of  what  has  more  or  less  strengthened 
his  ownership  of  sex,  is  giving  way  before  the  firea 
of  coming  truth,  then  and  there  we  shall  see  a  sen- 
sation which  has  not  been  equaled  in  modern  times. 
Man,  in  the  past,  has  rested  upon  deeds  and  marriage 
certificates  for  the  protection  of  his  lands  and  sexual 
claims.  Our  reformatory  opponents  require  him  to 
yield  the  certificate  and  some  times  to  consent  to  a 
change  of  possession.  This,  as  Mr.  Davis  foresees, 
he  will  oppose.  But  we  shall  only  see  the  full 
strength  of  his  opposition,  when  the  demand  comes 
home  to  him  to  unconditionally  and  forever  yield 
his  entire  personal  and  exclusive  grasp  upon  each 


1 


ANDREW  JACKSON  DAVIS.  129 

and  every  womaa  ;  resting  each  year,  month,  day, 
hour,  minute,  of  his  coming  future,  upon  his  own 
inherent  lovliness  to  attract  and  supply  his  coming 
wants.  This  is  a  condition  which  undeveloped  mind 
is  far  from  coveting ;  but  is  ever  ready  to  seek  to 
avoid.  Our  non-exclusive  principle,  added  to  our 
entire  and  absolute  freedom  of  woman,  is  what  will 
**  lay  the  axe  into  the  root  of  the  tree."  If  the  past 
teaches  us  any  lesson — and  we  think  it  does — it  is 
that  as  man  has  progressed,  this  man-power  over 
woman,  with  its  monopoly  of  exclusive  ownership, 
has  become  less  and  less.  Polygamy  is  a  sort  of 
wholesale  and  one-sided  sexual  monopoly.  Mono- 
gamy is  an  improvement  in  the  right  direction.  Its 
monopolies  are  less,  and  it  is  more  just  to  man  and 
more  reciprocal ;  yet  it  is  far  from  being  entirely 
just,  even  on  its  own  principles,  to  woman.  The 
rich  and  the  powerful  have  receded  from  many  to 
one ;  so  far  as  they  have  lived  to  their  covenant. 
Marriage,  in  her  present  injustice y  is  old  in  years, 
and  strong  in  power.  She  seems  to  sit  in  compara- 
tive ease,  and  in  her  slumbers,  as  did  slavery  a  few 
years  since.  But  she  sits  upon  a  volcano  of  smoth- 
ered and  crushed  affections,  which  will  in  a  coming 
hour,  break  her  slumbers  and  arouse  her  from  her 
lethargy.  The  fires  of  a  true  and  burning  Love  wil^ 
yet  burn  up  and  consume,  as  they  are  fanned  by  the 
perpetual  gales  of  truth,  her  exclusive  and  selfish  con- 
nubiality.     Their  powers  are  at  work,   and  nothing 


13<X  FREE    LOVE. 

can  stay  them.  Everything  will  forward  and  hasten 
it.  The  more  narrow  minded  and  seiually  selfish 
have  always  felt  it  keenly  that  they  were  not 
(permitted  to  carry  their  exclusive  system  into  heav- 
'-en  ;  but  the  prophesy  of  their  religion  had  taught 
:them  not  to  hope  for  this.  But  when  these  lower 
minds — I  speak  what  I  know — see  that  another 
jprophesy  in  the  same  book  is  to  hare  a  fulfilment — 
;  that  the  will  of  Grod  is  to  be  done  on  esrth  as  it  is 
done  in  heaven — as  the  higher  angels  do  it — they 
will  howl  in  their  misery.  Such  minds  do  not,  and 
can  not  at  once  enjoy  the  free  spirit  of  angels.  We 
should  be  glad  of  the  assurance  that  the  coming  war 
would  be  entirely  *' bloodless.''  Still  we  have  no 
fear  persmially.  ISTor  have  we  a  thought  of  living  to 
•  see  the  full  consummation  of  all  of  which  we  speak* 
Progress  i«  slow  at  the  best ;  and  doubtless  it  is  well 
that  it  is 'SO,  on  the  whole.  We  tell  the,  as  yet,  un- 
developed world,  there  is  to  be  a  mighty  change, 
N^ow  selfishness  is  the  rule  in  everything.  Benevo- 
lence is  the  exception.  Progress  will  change  all 
this.  Benevolence  will  one  day  be  the  rule, 
AND  SELFISHNESS  THE  EXCEPTION.  When  man 
'.  has  fairly  grown  to  his  manhood,  he  will  be 
nothing  lower  than  this.  The  marriages  of  Mr. 
Wright  'and  Mr.  Davis  are  glorious,  compared  to  the 
past,  for  they  really  and  truly  elevate  love  to  the 
lower  phases,  or  to  the  germ  of  spiritual  and  harmo* 
mial  connubiality.     But  we  prophesy  that  even  these, 


ANDREW  JACKSON  DAVIS.  131 

in  the  future,  will  have  comparatively  *'na  glory, '* 
by  reason  of  the  glory  which  will  then  so  far  exceed 
them.  The  fruition  of  a  ripe,  manly  and  womanly 
love  will  then  comprehend  and  absorb  all  of  the 
good  in  all  below  it ;  then,  in  connubial  love,  benev- 
olence will  be  the  rule,  and  selfishness  will  be  the 
exception.  I  glory  in  the  hope  and  assurance  of 
such  a  day  ;  and  in  living  to  hasten  it.  The  forma- 
tion of  man's  brain  promises  all  of  this,  and  it  will 
not  lie.  Mental  philosophy  never  lies.  Progression 
will  redeem  its  every  pledge.  Nothing  is  more 
sure.  We  come  back  to  that  "  war  " — as  we  hope 
"bloodless  war."  We  agree  with  our  opponents 
that  it  is  coming.  We,  in  entire  respect  and  friend- 
ship, yet  solemnly,  put  the  question — when  that 
war  fairly  comes,  in  all  its  intensity,  and  aims  its 
most  deadly  blows  against  our  n  on -exclusive  prin- 
ciples, where  will  Mr.  Wright  and  Mr.  Davis  be 
found  ?  That  hour  will  try  the  souls  of  reformers. 
We,  in  the  commencement  of  this  mental,  and 
more  than  mental,  stir,  stand  in  defence  of  all,  or 
nearly  all,  in  which  these  opponents  have  parted  from 
the  principles  of  the  past.  Where  will  they  be  when 
the  crisis  more  fully  reaaches  our  camp  ?  I  must 
repeat  my  interrogatory — will  they  then  be  found, 
on  the  whole,  for,  or  against  us  ?  We  aver  that  we 
are  not  anxious  for  ourselves,  or  for  the  cause  which 
we  identify,  as  to  the  practical  answer  which  the 
future   may   give   to  these  questions.     Each  in  his 


132  FREE    LOVE. 

book,  has  classed  us  with  the  enemy.  Will  these 
men  ever  retract  that  folly  ?  Double  folly  to  the 
real  cause  which  they  seek  to  promote  !  I  will  not 
speak  for  Mr.  Wright,  but  I  think  Mr.  Davis,  if  he 
does  not  then  directly  favor  free  love,  will  be  a  men- 
tal and  moral  non-resistant  towards  it,  and  treat  it 
with  entire  respect.  We  hope  not  to  be  disappoint- 
ed. More,  we  hope  he  will  yet  rejoice,  and  feel 
"everlasting  thanks'*  to  a  higher  power,  in  the  fi- 
nal fulness,  as  well  as  in  the  infancy,  of  his  Har- 
monial  philosophy. 

We  and  our  opponents  alike  contend  for  the  ab- 
solute freedom  of  woman.  This  is  well.  Then  it 
is  right  that  she  should  be  **  allowed  to  choose  the 
father  of  her  children, ^^  We  here  tell  our  oppo- 
nants  if  she,  in  freedom,  shall  continue  to  do  this, 
in  strict  harmony  with  their  dual  doctrines,  we 
will  never  reproach  or  condemn  her  for  it.  Are 
they  ready  to  meet  us  here,  if  in  such  freedom,  she 
shall,  to  any  extent,  act  in  harmony  with  our  views? 
We  have  a  right,  and  do  demand  as  much  as  this 
of  them.  We  ask  Mr.  Wright  in  the  name  of  ev- 
ery principle  of  justice  and  consistency,  after  having 
so  nobly  defended  the  rights  of  woman,  to  take  off 
and  keep  off  his  hands  from  all  women,  and  from 
man  also.  I  honor  the  man  or  woman  who,  from 
an  honest  faith,  or  belief,  lives  to  his  or  her  dual 
pledge.  I  have  no  heart  in  me  to  reproach  or 
slander  such.     We  ask,  and  demand  of  our  oppo- 


ANDREW    JACKSON    DAVIS.  133 

nents,  who  talk  freedom,   to  feel  and  act  freedom — 
allow  freedom. 

If  we  fail  to  make  them  understand  our  mental 
philosophy,  we  will  then  meet,  and  appeal  to  them 
to  let  tooman  h^free;  and  we  covenant  with  them  to 
keep  hands  off — judgments  and  reproaches  off — and 
we  will  abide  by  her  practical  decision.  We  can 
join  issue  here,  if  they  and  we  really  mean  the/ree- 
iom  of  woman.  This  is  a  good  and  fair  test.  We 
shall  write  our  book  as  they  have  theirs,  and  then 
wait  with  entire  trust  to  the  developments  of  the  fu- 
ture. Woman  will  have  her  freedom.  Truth  will 
^ow  and  prosper,  and  that  shall  be  our  final  arbiter. 
12 


APPENDIX. 


While  we  have  been  writing  our  book,  New  York 
city  has  been  all  astir  with  a  volcano  of  Free  Love. 
No  not  that :  It  was  a  volcano  of  exclusive  mar- 
riage, touched  off  by  a  free  love  match.  (See  city 
papers  about  the  20th  of  October.)  The  Tribune 
reissued  its  bulls  and  pledged  itself  anew  to  the  de- 
fence of  the  family.  Other  editors — from  the  great- 
er to  the  less,  even  to  the  remote  towns — caught  the 
spirit  of  the  times,  and  were  on  the  alert ;  and  alike 
renewed  their  vows  of  watchful  care  and  kind  re- 
gards to  their  old  mistress.  Seriously — what  has 
happened  to  cause  this  alarm  in  the  marriage  insti- 
tution ?  Has  free  love  encroached  upon  her  just 
and  established  rights  ?  Has  she  clandestinely 
entered  the  sexual  plantations  of  her  neighbor,  and 
enticed  away  his  body  slave-mate  ?  No  !  There  is 
no  evidence  of  that.  Has  she  taken  the  liberty  to 
regulate  her  own  domestic  concerns  to  her  own  taste, 
regardless  of  what  might  be  the  incidental  effect 
upon  her  old  neighbor  ?  We  think  not  even  that. 
She  has  spoken  her  mind  of  exclusive  marriage,  and 
recommended  free  love  !     She  has  talked  about  the 

135 


i 


136  APPENDIX. 

marriage  institution.  It  will  not  do.  Something 
must  be  done.  The  power  of  the  law  must  be  in- 
voked ►  She  must  send  the  noble  Brisbane  to  hei 
city  dungeon  for  a  night,  as  a  token  of  what  shei 
can  and  will  do,  if  her  wishes  are  not  regarded! 
Shame  on  such  despotism  and  cowardly  persecution 
in  Protestantism  !  Shame  on  such  inhumanity  in 
the  light  of  this*age  ! 

When  an  institution  of  so  great  age,  and  being  _ 
such  an  overwhelming  majority,  is  so  easily  an& 
carelessly  set  in  such  excited  and  angry  motion,  ii 
is  moral  proof  equal  to  a  mathamatical  demonstration 
of  her  inherent  weakness,  and  of  her  consciousnesi 
of  it.  It  must  be  rotten  at  heart,  and  without  a  s 
foundation.  Like  slavery,  it  quakes  when  touch' 
Yea,  when  even  looked  at !  Mr.  Greeley,  Mr.  BalL 
and  others,  would  know  how  to  appreciate  such  rJi 
flections  as  these,  if  connected  with  any  subject  noo 
in  harmony  with  their  faith.  Our  opponents  see  thu 
full  force  of  them,  when  they  relate  to  slavery.  Gen 
tlemen,  consistency  is  a  jewel.  If  I  were  to  fine 
such  a  sensation  on  my  side  of  the  house,  from  com 
parativly  so  small  a  cause,  even  though  our  belovec 
is  hardly  through  her  teens,  I  should  recommen( 
its  friends  to  look  again,  and  overhaul  the  whol 
concern,  to  lay  a  deeper  foundation  for  their  super 
structure.  Mr.  Greeley  believes  in  the  entire  safet] 
of  truth  in  free  discussion,  when  it  relates  to  thi 
institutions  of  his  remote   neighbors,   but  does  h* 


APPENDIX.  137 

really  dare  to  trust  it  and  himself  here  ?  Has  he 
no  fear  of  the  consequences  here  ?  From  his  course 
with  Mr.  Andrews,  and  since,  we  think  he  has.  Still, 
as  he  believes  in  a  true  expediency,  he  may  have 
thought  the  people  would  not  yet  bear  it.  Perhaps 
not.  We  do  not  complain  of  him,  but  we  do  thank 
him  for  what  he  has  ventured  in  this  hne. 

I  have  not  done  with  Mr.  Greeley,  I  wish  to  re- 
cord my  sincere  gratitude  to  him  for  the  good  he  has 
done  to  the  cause  which  I  advocate,  as  also  to  every 
other  radical  reform,  in  preparing  the  way  for  it  and 
them  by  his  general  efforts  on  the  side  of  free  discus- 
sion. Whatever  may  be  his  future  course,  I  promise 
never  to  forget  his  past  services.  He  has  made  his 
impress  on  the  age,  in  favor  of  a  degree  of  freedom. 
Like  the  colter  to  the  plow,  he  has  cut  the  sod. 
True,  in  all  this  he  has  never  meant  to  advance  free 
love ;  and  as  this  child  is  being  born,  he  would 
gladly  slay  it.  He  has  just  renewed  his  pledge  to 
always  pursue  it,  and  if  possible  exterminate  it.  (I 
suppose  the  late  pledge  in  the  Tribune  to  be  his. 
At  least  he  stands  in  that  position  )  To  the  cause 
of  the  most  radical  reform,  Mr.  Greeley's  name  has 
been  John  (the  baptist,)  now  it  is  Herod.  Christ 
has  come  and  John  is  no  more  needed.  We  think 
Herod  is ;  but  we  have  np  fear  that  he  can  do  his 
successor  any  real  harm.  We  most  sincerly  pray 
that  he  may  not  do  by  what  has  been  the  John 
in  himself,  as  the  Herod  of  old  did  with  the 
12* 


138  APPENDIX. 

baptist.'*      As  one  who  still    loves   liim  we   have 
feared  this. 

Mr.  Greeley  is  still  really  devoted  to  the  spread 
and  advancement  of  free  love ;  never  before  half  as 
much  so  as  now.     He  has  taken  his  position  behind, 
in  the  rear  of  it,  and  by  his  opposition  he  will  bringrj 
the  whole  power  of  his  tremenduous  battery  to  drive^j 
it  forward.     The  cause  has    able   leaders   enough,  J 
and  Mr.  Greeley  has  taken  the  best  possible  position 
which  he  could  take,  and  the  only  one  which  he  is^ 
now  prepared  to  occupy.     Here  he  will  act  with  zeal. 
Header,  these  were   our   reflections   on  reading  the  j 
late  pledge  of  perpetual  opposition  to  our  principles.! 
in  the  Tribune.     As  I  turned  from  my  pen  to  that  I 
paper  for  relaxation,  I  was  encouraged  and  strength- 
ened by  that  promise  to  oppose.     I  do  not  beheve 
that  a  truthful  opposition  will  ever  advance  error. 
But  I  do  believe  that  an  untruthful  opposition  will 
always  advance  truth. 

[The  author  would  say  to  the  reader  that  from 
unavoidable  hinderances,  this  small  work  has  been 
delayed  over  a  year  since  it  was  ready  for  the  press.] 


ETERNAL      JUSTICE. 

BY  CHARLES  MACKAY. 

The  man  is  thought  a  knave  or  fool. 

Or  bigot,  plotting  crime, 
Who  for  advancement  of  his  kind 

Is  wiser  than  his  time. 
For  him  the  hemlock  shall  distill ; 

For  him  the  axe  be  bared  ; 
For  him  the  gibbet  shall  be  built ; 

For  him  the  stake  prepared ; 
Him  shall  the  scorn  and  wrath  of  men 

Puraue  with  deadly  aim  ; 
And  malice,  envy,  spite,  and  lies, 

Shall  desecrate  his  name. 
But  truth  shall  conquer  at  the  last : 

For  round  and  round  we  run, 
And  ever  the  right  comes  uppermost, 

And  ever  is  justice  done. 

Pace  through  thy  cell,  old  Socrates, 

Cheerily  to  and  fro  ; 
Trust  to  the  impulse  of  thy  soul. 

And  let  the  poison  flow. 
They  may  shatter  to  earth  the  lamp  of  clay 

That  holds  the  light  divine, 
But  tliey  cannot  quench  tlie  fire  of  thought 

By  any  such  deadly  wine  ; 
They  cannot  blot  thy  spoken  words 

From  the  memory  of  man, 
By  all  the  poison  ever  was  bruised 

Since  Time  his  course  began. 
To-day  abhorred,  to-morrow  adored. 

So  round  and  round  we  run, 
And  ever  the  truth  comes  uppermost. 

And  ever  is  justice  done. 

Plot  in  thy  cave,  gray  anchorite. 

Be  wiser  than  thy  peers  ; 
Augment  the  range  of  human  power. 

And  trust  to  coming  years. 
They  may  call  thee  wizard  and  monk  accursed. 

And  load  thee  with  dispraise  ; 


KO  ETERNAL   JtSTICB. 

Thou  wert  born  five  hundred  years  too  so 

For  the  comfort  of  thy  days. 
But  not  too  soon  for  human  kind — 

Time  hatli  reward  in  store ; 
And  the  demons  of  our  stories  become 

The  saints  that  we  adore. 
The  blind  can  see,  the  slave  is  lord ; 

So  round  and  round  we  run. 
And  ever  the  wrong  is  proved  to  be  wrocg, 

And  ever  justice  is  done. 

Keep,  Galileo,  to  thy  thought, 

And  nerve  thy  soul  to  bear  ; 
They  may  gloat  o'er  the  senseless  words  tbey  wiiog 

From  trie  pangs  of  thy  despair ; 
They  may  veil  their  eyes,  but  they  cannot  hide 

The  sun's  meridian  glow ; 
The  heel  of  a  priest  may  tread  thee  down. 

And  a  tyrant  work  thee  woe  ; 
But  never  a  truth  has  been  destroyed  : 

They  may  curse  and  call  it  crime  ; 
Pervert  and  betray,  or  slander  and  slay 

Its  teachers  for  a  time. 
But  the  sunshine  aye  will  light  the  sky, 

As  round  and  round  we  run. 
And  truth  shall  ever  come  uppermost, 

And  justice  shall  be  done. 

And  live  there  now  such  men  as  these — 

With  thoughts  like  the  great  of  old  ? 
Many  have  died  in  their  misrry, 

And  left  their  thought  untold ; 
And  many  live,  and  are  ranked  as  mad. 

And  are  placed  in  the  cold  world's  ban. 
For  sending  their  bright,  far-seeing  souls 

Three  centuries  in  the  van  ; 
They  toil  in  penury  and  grief. 

Unknown,  if  not  maligned  ; 
Forlorn,  forlorn,  bearing  the  scorn 

Of  the  meanest  of  mankind. 
But  yet  the  world  goes  round  and  round, 

And  the  genial  seasons  run. 
And  ever  the  truth  comes  uppermoBt, 

And  ever  is  justice  done. 


PAMPHLET  B' 

sv-'f  GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 

Stoci.t«l 


B0DD351SBI 


HOA/IE 


use 


BOOICS  , 


'°AfrE,f7, 


^'^Siss^ 


3405 


-^S^^/iu.    /     ^^'^^^'^^^^^^figdvv" 


